W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: [PRD] Default conflict resolution strategy (ISSUE-64) (Was; Re: [Fwd: Re: PRD Review])

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:38:24 -0700
Message-ID: <488F63A0.8010406@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: Mark Proctor <mproctor@redhat.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>> Mark Proctor wrote:
>>>> Refaction in JRules is the same as jess/clips/drools no-loop. 
>> I'd be surprised if it is exactly the same.   What do you expect from 
>> the following ruleset:
>> p(1)
>> q(1)
>> q(2)
>> (* rule1[loop->false] *)
>> Do(external(print("rule1 fired, ?x=" ?x))) :- q(?x)
>> (* rule2[loop->false] *)
>> Do(Retract(p(1)) p(1) external(print("rule2 fired, ?x=" ?x))) :- 
>> And(p(1) q(?x))
> I guess you mean:
> rule1: if q(?x) then print("rule1 fired, ?x=" ?x)
> rule2: if p(1) and q(?x) then Retract(p(1)), Assert(p(1)), print 
> ("rule2 fired, ?x=" ?x)
> Hey, Gary, this is not in the spec, you can write them rules in a way 
> that makes sense :-)
I think we'll need to speak somewhat formally here to be sure we 
understand each other.
>> With Oracle/Jess, you get
>> rule2 fired, ?x=2
>> rule1 fired, ?x=2
>> rule1 fired, ?x=1
> With JRules, you bind only objects, so, the example does not really work.
> But if you could bind primitive data types, (I have to check, but I 
> think) 
I think you'd better check. 
> that you would fire rule2 with ?x=1 as well. 
Do you mean rule2 fires twice, once with ?x=1 and once with ?x=2?  That 
demonstrates a difference in semantics.  As I said, with Oracle and 
Jess, rule2 fires once with ?x=2 (because ?x=2 is the more recent binding)
> And that is certainly what you would get with the semantics that was 
> described in PRD.
Please clarify whether you mean rule2 fires once or twice, and then 
please "prove" it using the PRD semantics.  I don't see how PRD can give 
the Oracle/Jess semantics without some substantial changes.  PRD assumes 
that mergeInstances is not called between actions of the same rule; yet 
in Oracle/Jess (and most engines, I think) the agenda is modified by 
individual actions and this is why when the (actions of the) first 
instance of rule2 is executed, the second instance is removed.  But when 
the first instance of rule1 is executed, nothing happens to the second 
instance of rule1 and so rule1 is executed twice.
>> The semantics of Oracle/Jess is that a rule's actions cannot 
>> re-activate that rule.  Initially, because of the input data, rule1 
>> and rule2 each have 2 activations.  When rule2 fires, the retraction 
>> removes the other rule2 activation.  The assert action cannot 
>> reactivate rule2 because of the no-loop property.
> I do not understand that. I mean, I do not understand the intended 
> behaviour: do you mean that p(1) after rule2 has been fired is 
> distinct from p(1) before, and that, somehow, the engine recognizes 
> the difference? Does this have to do with the assertion being logical 
> (and the engine tracing the origin of it)? I mean, as in a TMS: Jess 
> has a TMS facility, right? I have to check how we handle refraction 
> (or equivalent) wrt logical statements in JRules...
No, it has to do with the fact that even though the initial and final 
states of the sequence of actions Do(Retract(p(1)) p(1)) are the same 
(assuming p(1) exists in the initial state), this sequence of actions is 
different from Do().  And this difference is not accounted for in the 
semantics.  This difference is needed to explain the Oracle/Jess no-loop 
>> We need to carefully specify these strategies to be sure we agree 
>> what they are, and then we need to see what the intersection is, and 
>> if it is  >= 1, give it an explicit name(s) (and probably not in the 
>> metadata as my example does).
> Absolutely agree.
BTW, Oracle/Jess does not support all-at-once rule firing, other than by 
aggregation.  Nor do they support random firing. I think these are rare 
features, and do not merit standardization. 
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 18:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC