On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:48 AM, levent kent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for your help. I think this solves the problem:
>
> (defrule propagate-back
> (forall (depends-on (parent ?x)(children ? ?n ?))
> (available-part (name ?n)))
> =>
> (assert (available-part (name ?x)))
> )
This won't do as ?x isn't visible on the right hand side. Since forall would
(potentially) match several depends-on facts a single variable cannot be
used.
If the parent slot value is a unique identifier for depends-on, stick with
Ernest's last proposal, i.e.,
(defrule propagate-back
(parent ?x)
(forall (depends-on (parent ?x)(children ? ?n ?))
(available-part (name ?n)))
=>...
-W
>
>
> The problem was that I did not know about the "forall" conditional element,
> which was introduced in the later than many other constructs.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ernest Friedman-Hill
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I think you can replace all occurrences of "id" with "parent", removing
>> the redundant "parent" reference in the first fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, where I have "name" in depends-on, that was meant to be your slot
>>> "children".
>>>
>>> As for the id slot I added: I don't think it can be done without. It just
>>> should be a unique identifier.
>>> It serves the same or similar purpose in Ernest's solution, to freeze the
>>> forall iteration to the children list elements of a *single* depends-on
>>> fact, i.e., the one matched in the initial CE.
>>>
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:31 PM, levent kent <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> Thanks again, but I didn't get it. I don't have any slot named "id" or
>>> "name".
>>> Idefined my templates as follows.
>>>
>>> (deftemplate depends-on (slot parent) (multislot children))
>>> (deftemplate available-part (slot name))
>>>
>>> Here, depends-on relation specifies which parent task depends on the
>>> subtaks given in the multislot named "children".
>>>
>>> To complete a "parent task", one should first complete the subtasks. I a
>>> task ?x is to be completed, the system adds (available-part (name ?x)) to
>>> the working memory. So, I need to check if all subtasks of a parent task ?p
>>> are "available-part" or not to insert (availabl-part (name ?p)) to WM.
>>>
>>> I hope it is not difficult ot rewrite your query.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Ernest Friedman-Hill <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>> This is the right solution; it could be simplified a little using the
>>> "forall" conditional element, which would make this closer to the spirit of
>>> the Levent's original:
>>>
>>>
>>> (defrule every-subtask
>>> (depends-on (id ?x)(parent ?a))
>>> (forall (depends-on (id ?x)(name ? ?n ?))
>>>
>>> (available-part (name ?n)))
>>> =>
>>> (assert (available-part (name ?a)))
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be easier to detect a depends-on where the available-part would
>>> be missing for one of its name list elements.
>>>
>>> As it stands now, you'll need an identifier for depends-on so that the
>>> binding into the not (via ?x) is possible.
>>>
>>> (defrule every-subtask
>>> (depends-on (id ?x)(parent ?a))
>>> (not (and (depends-on (id ?x)(name ? ?n ?))
>>> (not (available-part (name ?n)))))
>>> =>
>>> (assert (available-part (name ?a)))
>>> )
>>>
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:47 PM, levent kent <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> I am doing my masters thesis and have a problem with lists.
>>> It is actually very simple.
>>>
>>> I want to create a rule which says:
>>> If all subtasks of a parent task are completed, then the parent task can
>>> be completed too.
>>>
>>> I tried the code below, but it seems that I can not use "foreach" at LHS
>>> of a rule.
>>>
>>> (defrule BuildPlanForward
>>> (depends-on (parent ?a) (children ?list))
>>> (foreach ?c ?list (available-part (name ?c)))
>>> =>
>>> (assert (available-part (name ?a)))
>>> )
>>>
>>> How could I write such a rule in Jess?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Levent Kent
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ernest Friedman-Hill
>>> Informatics & Decision Sciences Phone: (925) 294-2154
>>> Sandia National Labs
>>> PO Box 969, MS 9012 [email protected]
>>> Livermore, CA 94550 http://www.jessrules.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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].
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Levent Kent
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Ernest Friedman-Hill
>> Informatics & Decision Sciences, Sandia National Laboratories
>> PO Box 969, MS 9012, Livermore, CA 94550
>>
>> http://www.jessrules.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>> .
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Levent Kent
>
