I don't know if it is suitable to publish a Call for Papers on this
list but the attached document describes a Call for Papers for:
The 17th International Conference on Industrial & Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence & Expert Systems
May 17-20, 2004
Ottawa, Canada
Bob Orchard
I think Orchard, Bob wrote:
> I guess I was thinking that this was a runtime thing and not a
> compile-time decision.
The implementation I came up with is nice because many different
features continue to work, but with the new semantics. In a nutshell,
what happens is that for facts that can be t
I think Prof. Michael Stiber wrote:
>
> If you're taking votes, mine would lie almost always on the side of
> keeping the language syntax simple. Please only add to the language
> syntax if the alternative is truly gruesome. For example, is the "{}"
> syntax better than just having a function t
Sorry about mixing the order in Alan's example and mine...
this would have been confusing.
> -Original Message-
> As you note, the per-pattern syntax could be ugly. Maybe PATTERN-SLOT
> patterns could be enclosed by square brackets instead of parentheses,
> or something like that? We're no
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 07:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you note, the per-pattern syntax could be ugly. Maybe PATTERN-SLOT
patterns could be enclosed by square brackets instead of parentheses,
or something like that? We're not actually constrained by traditional
LISP syntax, and I'
I think Orchard, Bob wrote:
>
> First the 'single' slot activation is a bit mis-leading to me. I would
> prefer to see it labelled 'any' slot activation since any slot that
> is modifed can cause an activation (actually a 'match' of the pattern and
> not necessarily an activation -- rules are acti
3-8557
(613) 952-0215 Fax / tilicopieur
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JESS: "Single-slot activat
I think Alan Moore wrote:
> (defrule should-activate-when-object-exists
>(other)
>(not (MyObject))
> =>
> )
>
> How would these patterns work? Since *no* slots are mentioned it isn't clear
> what would happen.
>
Good question! This requires special handling, but it does indeed work.
--
I think Alan Moore wrote:
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> How about:
>
> (declare (activation SLOT|TEMPLATE))
>
> or
>
> (declare (activate PER-SLOT|PER-TEMPLATE))
>
> or something similar.
>
> I suggest that you don't use the boolean form because, in the future, you
Another question...
Given patterns like:
(defclass MyObject com.myco.MyObject (activate PER-SLOT))
(defrule does-this-match
(MyObject)
=>
)
(defrule should-activate-when-object-exists
(other)
(not (MyObject))
=>
)
How would these patterns work? Since *no* slots are mentioned it isn't
How about:
(declare (activation SLOT|TEMPLATE))
or
(declare (activate PER-SLOT|PER-TEMPLATE))
or something similar.
I suggest that you don't use the boolean form because, in the future, you
might decide to add another activation strategy:
(declare (activation SLOT|TEMPLATE|KARMA))
Also, how
11 matches
Mail list logo
