> That seems dangerous to me. What if a box (of class Box) references > its > 6 side rectangles (of class Rectangle) through a "side" property, and > has a rule to infer its surface area by adding the areas of it's side > rectangles? If the rectangles' widths/heights change, it seems like > only the rectangles spin:rules would get run. Even if applying the > rule > recursively to new triples generated from the spin:rules, the only new > triple from the area rule would be something like: > > rectangle hasArea 30 > > The cube instance doesn't show up in that triple, so its rules > wouldn't > get re-run.
Yes. This is one of the trade-offs of this type of incremental inferencing. In order to be complete, a more sophisticated infrastructure would be needed, with rule chaining etc. We do not go that far right now. The trivial implementation would indeed be to reset inferences each time and re-run them all. But that's hardly desirable, and our current solution captures a good fraction of the common cases, e.g. to derive direct property values from others. Holger --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
