Semantics of rule subtyping if allowed

[flyingsilverfin]

Currently, rules look like any other schema type (eg. Entity, Attribute, Relation). This leads to confusion because they are defined the same way as these types, eg define newrule sub rule..., which implies that they may be written in hierarchies themselves. However, we do not have any meaning ascribed to subtyping existing rules.

Core questions:

1. What does subtyping of rules mean semantically? Currently, it is allowed syntactically
2. Should we even allow subtyping rules?
3. A rule is not a concept type (we have no rule type instances, only exist on the schema level for now). So really should a rule even exist in the same hierarchy of Thing that it sits in now?

[JRWest2000]

Could the semantics of rule sub typing be that
Rule a supertypes Rule b when Rule a is a generalization of Rule b.
This might lead to the ability to arrange rules into a tree hirackary that would in turn lead to
the ability to match relevant rules using binary searching and all the performance advantages that intailes.

[flyingsilverfin]

we've decided against this and made rules separate schema entities that are not in a type hierarchy - type hierarchies are only used for Concept types, which no longer includes Rules