- From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:09:15 +0200
- To: "'Rule Interchange Format Working Group WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Open questions to discuss are, e.g.: - Do we need/allow multiple asserts / retracts such as (retract ?f1 ?f2) instead of (retract ?f1) (retract ?f2)? Should they be considered as atomic? - Introduce a new Modify action or use an atomic "Retract + Assert"? - We already use External to define calls to built-ins (possibly including user-defined built-ins). Do we need a new Execute action instead of reusing External with e.g. an attribute which distinguishes built-in calls from possibly side-effect full procedural attachments. -Adrian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 17:13 An: public-rif-wg@w3.org Betreff: ISSUE-62 (actions in PRD): Which actions should PRD cover [PRD ] ISSUE-62 (actions in PRD): Which actions should PRD cover [PRD ] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/ Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie On product: PRD - The basic actions in a production rule systems are ASSERT, RETRACT, MODIFY; - Most implemented PR languages have also the possibility to execute some sort of externally specified code; - In the non-normative PRR-OCL section, OMG PRR specifies five actions: assert, retract, update, assign and invoke. What are action constructs should we specify in PRD?
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:10:02 UTC