I think Chad Loder wrote:
>
> "If there exists a diagnosis-fact X and a distinct
> diagnosis-fact Y s.t. X and Y agree on some particulars
> but disagree on other particulars, then
> assert(needs-resolution (X Y))"
>
> Is [this] possible within Jess? I see in
> the documentation that the (exists) CE does not let
> you bind the triggering fact -- from a performance
> point-of-view, I understand why that restriction
> must exist.
Well, the reason for this isn't efficiency -- it's that by definition,
(exists) is true whether there are one or one hundred matches. There
is no "one" fact that satisfies an (exists).
But without using (exists), you would get a rule firing for each case
that matches your criterion, and isn't that what you want, anyway? You
want to resolve all the conflicts eventually, right? So you want the
rule to fire for each conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
Org. 8920, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PO Box 969 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
Livermore, CA 94550
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
