- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:18:55 -0400
- 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? Cheers, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 19:20:02 UTC