Level Access Feedback: ACT Rule Types

[WilcoFiers]

Suggestion: We might consider the removal of the sentence “Composite rules cannot contain other composite rules. Any time a nested composite rule would be needed, all of the relevant atomic rules can be combined directly into the new composite rule.”

Reason: We might need a Composite rule which covers an entire SC, in order to generate outcomes as described under 4.4.1 Outcome Mapping. What we are noticing is that our tests are way more atomic than the ACT-R rules. Which means we already use a pseudo “Composite” rule structure to replicate most ACT-R rules. If we were to present our collection of single, more atomic, rules formally to the ACT-TF as say a replacement for a larger over-arching ACT-R rule we would almost certainly end up having to have Composite rules of Composite rules when covering an entire SC.

[WilcoFiers]

Proposed response:

As agreed on during the ACT TF call with Alistair, the task force proposes to leave this part of the ACT Rules Format as is. Removing the restriction on composing composite rules may have implications for the implementability of rules for tools with a relatively flat software architecture. While we acknowledge that reusability of rules may somewhat be limited, multiple layers of composite rules can also be expressed using a single composite rule. The ACT Task Force is open to looking at this topic again if the ACT Rules Format is ever updated.

[aglevelaccess]

Proposed response acceptable, but I'm sure discussion will continue in future versions of the document.