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
whose
> > 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:57 GMT