----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: JESS: Bound variable values and facts
> I think Michael Knapik wrote:
> [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am reading on page 76 in the book Jess In Action on working memory.
About facts. If one needs to assert a "fact" to add it to memory, what are
the bound values of variables?
> >
>
> They're the values of variables.
>
> > Like (bind ?x 3) WRT working memory and facts? I.e., what is ?x
> and its value 3? Are they not in working memory?
>
> No, they're not. Besides giving the definition of working memory as
> the place where facts are stored (page 75), at the beginning of
> section 6.2, on page 81 it says
>
> "Jess's working memory is stored in a complex data structure with
> multiple indices, so that searching the working memory is a very fast
> operation. The working memory is therefore something like a relational
> database, and the individual facts are like rows in a database
> table... This implies that facts, like table rows, must have a
> specific structure so that they can be indexed..."
>
>
> > When I command Jess (facts) after the aforementioned binding, Jess says
there are 0 facts in working memory. Yet I can use the ?x as a "fact" - a
value in "memory" in other expressions etc.
> >
>
> Starting on line 6 of page 76, I quote:
>
> "It is important to realize that we're using the word fact in a
> specific, technical sense, and the meaning differs slightly from the
> colloquial English usage."
>
> And then it goes on to elaborate the definition of a fact.
>
> So in any case, "fact" and "working memory" are specific technical
> terms, and you're asking me whether it appears that variables appear
> to be stored in the computer's RAM, and therefore represent something
> like the colloquial definition of a fact. Yes, sure. That's why I went
> out of my way to specifically state that facts are *not* quite what
> the colloquial definition of the word might lead you to expect, and
> that working memory is not at all the same as RAM.
Yes - I understood all that. I was asking why one differntiated between
some values in memory (values of variabels in RAM) and other values in
memory (facts in your fact sturctures); operationally to the user they are
values in memory ("working memory" and "non-working-memory") that can be
used in expressions. As I read further and see some differences
operationallly, that difference may indeed become important as I suspect
based on the reading to page 77. In fact, if rules can only act on the
"facts" working-memory then that is indeed a difference that makes a
difference. No need to reply.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Ernest Friedman-Hill
> Science and Engineering PSEs Phone: (925) 294-2154
> Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
> PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
