RE: Using declarative rules for MISMO ?

Sandro - thanks for the explanation. Interpretation is everything!

> My point is that, as far as I can tell from these rules, the MISMO
logic
> could be written as deductive (condition-condition, non-action) rules.

[Note: your remarks *could* be interpreted as: lets try and persuade
MISMO to use *my* type of rules rather than the ones they seem to be
specifying today. May I suggest that any such activity should be outside
of W3C? Although it would be a useful exercise to map these rules, once
in RIF, to other rule types for the sake if rule-type-interchange,
influencing end-user organizations to move to alternative rule types
*could* be seen as "counter to the interests of members of RIF"... just
my 2c.]

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 11 June 2007 12:30
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Using declarative rules for MISMO ?
> 
> 
> "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com> writes:
> > Sandro: can you explain why (you believe) a rule statement like
> > > > rule "Credit Score Adjustments 1"
> > > >   date-effective "25-OCT-2001 17:26:14"
> > > >   when
> > > >     cs : CreditSCore( programGroup == "ACMEPowerBuyerGroup",
> > > >                       lienType     == "FIRST_TD; SECOND_TD",
> > > >                       devision     == "Wholesale",
> > > >                       creditScore  >= 580 & <= 679 )
> > > >   then
> > > >     cs( score = cs.score -0.3 );
> > > > end
> > Is not declarative?
> >
> > AFAIK the term "declarative" refers to the rule statement in the
context
> > of other rule statements - and there is no requirement for rule
ordering
> > implied by the above rule fragment. Unless you are referring to the
> > action "reduce score by 0.3" which (a) implies some precondition re
> > score already having a value and (b) *is* the actual MISMO "logic"
(so
> > is not something we are at liberty to change :)).
> 
> Ah, perhaps I'm over-using the term "declarative".  I meant
"deductive"
> or "pure logic" rules; it is the action part that I'm trying to work
> around.
> 
> My point is that, as far as I can tell from these rules, the MISMO
logic
> could be written as deductive (condition-condition, non-action) rules.
> 
> I would kind of like to understand why the MISMO community does not
want
> to do that, but mostly my point is that one can, I believe, translate
> (compile) the kind of rules they are writing into deductive rules.
And
> doing so would enable such rules to be conveyed in RIF Core.  They
could
> be run by non-production-rule systems, combined with other types of
> rules, and (I suspect) subject to greater optimization.  (I don't know
> if performance is an issue for them, but surely it is for some rule
> users.)
> 
> > PS Sorry to hear about the broken snow globe. Nothing, I'm sure, to
do
> > with international baggage handlers' opinions of US government
attitudes
> > to global warming...
> 
> Nothing, I'm sure.  :-)
> 
>     -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 12:02:45 UTC