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

RE: [PRD] Refraction Semantics may be WRONG!

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:23:02 -0800
Message-ID: <A92210407BA7004199621BE5F0AC5D8B01C02601@NA-PA-VBE04.na.tibco.com>
To: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
TIBCO BusinessEvents rule engine also loops in this case - the action is
updating a property in the rule condition so the rule is placed back on
the agenda. In some other rule engines, the condition state change
(versus referenced rule variable state change) is what determines
whether a rule is placed back on the agenda. 

 

[Assuming I interpreted/mapped the PRD rule specification correctly...
I'm not sure whether ?C is just an intermediate term required by RIF's
expression language, or whether this is part of the test (have a rule
variable or term that is not a rule variable). Either way, I can't see
how adding another rule or simple variable will halt the rule looping
without some external influencer. ]

 

 

Cheers

Paul Vincent 

TIBCO

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]

> On Behalf Of Gary Hallmark

> Sent: 17 November 2009 00:36

> To: RIF WG

> Cc: neal Wyse

> Subject: [PRD] Refraction Semantics may be WRONG!

> 

> I've discovered that refraction in OBR and Jess do not conform to the

> PRD spec. In particular, the

> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Modify_noloop test case will always

> loop. The issue is that the PRD spec includes only the Forall
variables

> in the rule instance, but my system(s) also includes the Exists

> variables in the rule instance.

> 

> What do the other PR systems do? Can you please try the Modify_noloop

> test?

> 

 




image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 13:23:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 November 2009 13:23:47 GMT