I think EFH's right: this mod would be a great option for inference, practically useful for pruning decision trees, etc. Deserves to be part of core functionality.
Bob T. >I think Juraj Frivolt wrote: >> >> Thanks for the advice. I studied this code before. With uncommeting >> engine.run(10) it works well. At this point I'd like to suggest a small >> change in syntax. I added a new variable to defquery. By declaring >> variable rule-activation to a number, it fires the given number of >> activations, if the value is <all>, it fires all activations (what can >> lead to infinite branches), setting value to <no> (or zero) running >> defqueries works as it works now, this is the default setting. > >This is a very interesting idea. I think it's better than the existing >solution, where the value would be a fixed number (10 currently). It >allows you to shut off the chaining if it causes problems, or run >longer if necessary. > >I think I like it. Anybody else have any opinions? > > >--------------------------------------------------------- >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] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
