RE: [PRD] PICK specification --> comment

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