Generic rule reasoner and noValue()

[Justin Dowdy]

Hi all,

Using Generic rule reasoner (in FORWARD mode), say I have a rule with this
in the head:
(?reportA ex:supercededBy ?reportB)

Then another rule with this in the body:
noValue(?reportA ex:supercededBy ?reportB)

Shouldn't there be an implicit rule fire ordering since we can see that the
second rule depends on the first rule firing until completion.

And a related question...

Say I have triples like:
:thingA :hasValue 8 .
:thingA :hasValue 4 .
:thingA :hasValue 9 .
...

Using FORWARD mode, is it possible to write a set of rules that do the
equivalent of:
```
CONSTRUCT
  {
    ?thing :hasMaxValue ?max_value .
  }
WHERE
  { SELECT  ?thing (MAX(?value) AS ?max_value)
    WHERE
      { ?thing  :hasValue  ?value }
    GROUP BY ?thing
  }
```