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

Re: [PRD] PICK specification --> comment

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:18:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4907659F.7000704@ilog.fr>
To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
CC: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Paul Vincent wrote:
> [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.

Sorry for being so naive about rule-flow, but my question was: why would conflict resolution not be required during the execution of each separate ruleset?

> 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?

Hmmm... Yes, for ordering properties like priority, that are attached to a rule, not an instance; but refraction is (at least in some cases) applied at the rule instance level; and recency as well. Or is recency applied at the rule level (that is: all the instances of the rule are as recent as its most - or least - recent instance) in Blaze or Tibco?


Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 19:20:02 UTC

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