Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Thoughts on rule specification actors #22

Open
jeswr opened this issue Mar 9, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Thoughts on rule specification actors #22

jeswr opened this issue Mar 9, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@jeswr
Copy link
Member

jeswr commented Mar 9, 2022

So far - we don't have a very clean way of handling different sets of rule types within our reasoning components; and instead have an architecture in which we assume that each actor includes whatever rule tests it needs to in its test method.

It may be worth considering the use of an architecture similar to that of the parse actors which are able to handle specific file types.

For instance I'm thinking that an optimization actor would look something like:

export class ActorRuleOptimizeX extends ActorRuleOptimize {
  /**
   * @param args -
   *   \ @defaultNested {[
   *       "premise-conlusion",
   *      "RDFS"
   *     ]} handledRules
   */
  public constructor(args: ...) {
    super(args);
  }

  public async runHandle(action: ..., ...): Promise<...> {
    ...
  }
}

Long term it would be useful to also have an RDF configuration file that defines subset inclusion of rule types; for instance

premise-conlusion subsetOf RDFS

and hence the JSDoc config from above would become

  /**
   * @param args -
   *   \ @defaultNested {"RDFS"} handledRules
   */
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant