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

RE: [PRD] PICK specification --> comment

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:01:01 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D7717A83@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Paul Vincent wrote:

> From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr]
> Paul Vincent wrote:
> >
> > My thoughts are:
> >  ...
> > [2] If there is no inferencing, then a rule cycle will only complete
> > once for any ruleset in scope. Ruleflow-defined rule systems only
have 1
> > ruleset in scope at a time. Therefore, CR is not required. Further,
> > usually such rulesets will be exclusive (have only a single rule
> > condition matches the current state of WM).
> Interesting. Do you have evidence of that?

[PV>] Well, the definition of ruleflow *normally* is the orchestration
for execution of rulesets. It therefore follows that rulesets A followed
by B followed by C will be in scope at disjoint times, and are therefore
exclusive. However, I'll leave the formal proof of that to someone else

By the way, it's probably worth mentioning that CR AFAIK refers to "rule
conflicts" ie the choice between 2 rules, not 2+ rule instance ordering
for execution. I'm not sure what the term for rule instance ordering is
... maybe rule instance ordering?

> Cheers,
> Christian
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 18:02:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:53 UTC