- From: Alex Kozlenkov <alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:11:54 +0100
- To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Guys Here are some details about my tasks from the last teleconference. 1. I have contacted Daniel Selman through one channel but he has not yet responded. For those of you who do not know him, he used to be with ILOG then moved over to BEA and is know for having been the Specification Lead of JSR-94 and the founder of the website javarules.org. He also co-created the rules engine built into BEA Portal product. The idea is to get the announcement about the current RIF Draft to be communicated to the JSR-94 community in order to ensure that those of them who are not yet participating in RIF, become more involved at least by providing their feedback. 2. I am looking into four languages with a goal to find common points between their condition languages and the condition language outlined by Harold Boley et al. The languages I have chosen--hopefully not contradicting someone else's earlier commitment--are JBoss Rules, SUN Glassfish Self-Management, Mozilla XUL, and Prova (I'm the author of the latter so I will be able to say a few things more). The Jboss Rules (former Drools) is a fairly classic production rules system with syntax and semantics that so far look to me as mappable to Frame logic. Now we haven't used Frame logic directly in our documents. However, we should be aware that Frame logic is essentially a syntactic sugar on top of logic programming with negation based on well-formed semantics. I don't see Jboss Rules using WFS but a scoped NAF seems to be there as well as the use of quantifiers and connectives on the RHS. XUL is interesting in that it actually integrates RDF querying. Sun Glassfish Self-Management is possibly the most limited and not so well described. 3. Independently from that, I'm surveying the existing languages with a view to extend the condition language WIKI with some analysis of possible action types in active rules. There is a surprising variety of action literals (effectors) and I must stress that these effectors may not necessarily by the head of a rule. A more general ECA style would put actions into the special action compartment while the approach used in BPEL and Prova would allow actions (like communication actions) to be present more or less freely. More later, Alex Kozlenkov Advanced Technologies Group Betfair Ltd. www.betfair.com W3C AC-Rep
Received on Friday, 14 July 2006 09:40:26 UTC