W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2009

AW: Rule qualifications and different rule types

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:26:05 +0200
To: "'Paul Vincent'" <pvincent@tibco.com>, "'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "'RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1Lxzh7-0007r0-9C@bart.w3.org>
Right - for a rule-based Event Processing Language much more is needed such
as concepts for explicit "complex" events (event algebra operators), complex
actions, explicit time and state, event consumption policies, etc.

Since with Reaction RuleML we have a rule-based EPL I always hoped that
there will be enough time to bring that that into a RIF Reaction Rules
Dialect, but the basic RIF dialects kept us busy enough.



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Paul Vincent
Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. April 2009 04:26
An: Adrian Paschke; Gary Hallmark; Christian de Sainte Marie
Betreff: RE: Rule qualifications and different rule types

Adrian - just catching up on some emails... I think for RIF to cover
"CEP" we would need to have the concepts of "event" and "time" covered -
which might be a challenge ... 

Paul Vincent 
+1 650 206 2493 / mobile +44 781 493 7229 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Paschke [mailto:adrian.paschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: 03 March 2009 15:58
> To: 'Gary Hallmark'; 'Christian de Sainte Marie'
> Cc: Paul Vincent; 'RIF WG'; 'Serrano-Morales, Carlos A'; 'Berlioz-
> Matignon, Carole Ann'
> Subject: Rule qualifications and different rule types
> Hi All,
> With respect to my
> ACTION: Adrian to investigate use cases where a specific Rule
> would be needed (in future dialects, e.g. for CEP rules), as an
> indicator
> for whether and how urgently such a construct would be needed in PRD
> If RIF should be a general interchange format we
> 1. need to support different types of rules
> 2. need to support different rule qualifications such as priority
> values or
> temporal constraints such as validity times or fuzzy, uncertainty
> quantifications, etc.
> With respect to 1:
> There are many other rule families.
> For instance, defeasible logic which distinguish between defeasible
> rules,
> where conclusions can be "defeated" by other rules with higher
> and
> strict rules, which are like standard "if-then" derivation rules.
> For instance, reactive rules which add an explicit event part, i.e.
> Event if Condition then do Action".
> Currently, we have Implies for if-then production rules and if-then
> derivation rules. Instead of introducing many other specialized rule
> construct we could generalize the Implies construct and reuse it in
> these
> rule families, e.g. for defeasible rules there would be an additional
> attribute on Implies indicating if the rule is strict or defeasible.
> For
> reaction rules, we would introduce an event part.
> However the Implies construct itself is semantically misleading since
> reaction rule is not an implication rule. So, probably a more general
> "Rule"
> construct would make sense.
> With respect to 2:
> Qualifications are needed in various ways. We need them on rule sets,
> i.e.
> on the complete Group. But we also need them on the rule level.
> could be used, i.e. we could add qualification (e.g. as attributes or
> subelements) to the Implies. However, then unconditional actions and
> facts
> would need to be wrapped by the Implies construct. Again, calling a
> fact and
> implication is semantically incorrect - so a general "Rule" construct
> would
> be the solution, since a fact is an unconditional rule.
> -Adrian
Received on Sunday, 26 April 2009 08:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:55 UTC