RE: ISSUE-64 (PICK): Conflict resolution strategies to be covered by PRD? [PRD ]

No.

[RIF cannot possibly model every possible conflict resolution strategy,
and indeed rule execution is orthogonal to rule representation and
interchange. So best leave alone, with the exception maybe of optionally
supporting rule priorities, maybe as metadata, to provide guidance to a
BRE].

On the topic of sequential/procedural interpretation of rules: it would
be nice to avoid precluding such a mode, but it is not a priority /
important for PRD version 1 IMHO. 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 20 June 2008 16:33
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-64 (PICK): Conflict resolution strategies to be covered
by
> PRD? [PRD ]
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-64 (PICK): Conflict resolution strategies to be covered by PRD?
[PRD
> ]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie
> On product: PRD
> 
> - Some PR languages permit fairly complex conflict resolution
strategies:
> what conflict resolution strategies should PRD cover?
> - What combinations?
> - Should there be a default strategy, and, if yes: which one?
> - How to notify the intended strategy or combination to the consumer?
> - OMG PRR does not identify specific conflict resolution strategies,
but
> two operation modes: forward chaining and sequential (but the
description
> of the semantics makes the forward chaining mode explicitely dependent
on
> a conflict resolution strategy that is not defined further). Should
PRD
> cover some form of a sequential mode and, if yes: which?
> 
>

Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 15:59:36 UTC