[Jdrew-all] Sorry for NAF bugs in extended oo jdrew

[Marcel Ball]

If possible you may want consider using the top-down version of OO jDREW for
working with NAF, it has had NAF implemented longer and may be less
problematic (although I cannot guarantee this).

With regards to <Or>, Jing's statements are correct; while <Or> is specified
in the RuleML standard, it has not yet been implemented in OO jDREW. You
would need to rewrite any implications with <Or>s in the body as multiple
rules that only use <And>.

~marcel

On 3/30/06, Jing Mei <jingmei.may at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi SianLun,
>
> If the value does not match, then we will remove the *Naf* term rather
> than the whole rule.
>
> For more on the NAF in OO jDREW, the link of
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/49/#extensions perhaps gives some
> hints, besides that of http://www.jdrew.org/oojdrew/exa/extensions.html.
>
> As far as I know (however, i am not sure), <Or> is supported by RuleML but
> not implemented in OO jDREW yet.
>
> Thanks,
> Jing
>
>
> On 3/30/06, Wahlau - <wahlau at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jing,
> >
> > if it is confirmed a bug, i will try to hack it a little by not
> > removing it if the value does not matches.
> >
> > is there any more detail descriptions or explantion on Naf?
> >
> > and since you answered :) is there any possibility that you know how
> > <Or> can be implemented with oojdrew?
> >
> > thanks...
> >
> > regards,
> > SianLun
>
>
>
> On 30/03/06, Jing Mei <jingmei.may at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi SianLun and all,
> >
> >  I read your email "[Jdrew-all] Negation revisited" from
> > http://mail.ruleml.org/pipermail/jdrew-all/2006-March/000019.html
> > -- Thanks for your comments!
> >
> >  Recalling to the strategy of NAF (e.g. *Naf(special(?product))* in our
> > example) in BUTree.java, we actually rebuild a fresh query (i.e.
> > *qDC=special(?product)*) to the rule base. If such query is unified with
>
> > certain constant (i.e. *?product=clothes* or *?product=shoes*), then the
> > corresponding rule is removed. Unfortunately, such unifier does not
> consider
> > other bindings in the same rule (e.g. *onsale(?product)*, where
> *?product*
> > should be identical to that of *special*). That's the reason why the
> > negation takes place no matter any value the fact *special* carries, as
> you
> > pointed out.
> >
> >  Sorry for making such bugs -- i will try to figure it out, if possible.
>
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  Jing
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jdrew-all mailing list
> > Jdrew-all at jdrew.org
> > http://mail.jdrew.org/mailman/listinfo/jdrew-all
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ===================== : : : ---
> normal reply to wahlau at gmail.com
> urgent reply to slau at wahlau.org
> --- : : : ======================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jdrew-all mailing list
> Jdrew-all at jdrew.org
> http://mail.jdrew.org/mailman/listinfo/jdrew-all
>
>
>


--
Marcel Ball <maball at gmail.com>

-----------------------------------------------
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas,
obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little pratice, writing can be an intimidating
and impenetrable fog!
           - Calvin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ruleml.org/pipermail/jdrew-all/attachments/20060330/2dbbb670/attachment.htm