RE: ISSUE-65 (FINAL): What halting test should PRD cover? [PRD ]

Usually systems have some kind of "halt" or "return" fn. You could make
this part of the spec. But for "typical" (IMHO) likely RIF use cases
where:
- rules are part of a contract checked as a service: there should be no
continuous rule processing / inferring
- rulesets are interchanged that form part of a larger continuous system
...this should probably be unnecessary.

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 20 June 2008 16:43
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-65 (FINAL): What halting test should PRD cover? [PRD ]
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-65 (FINAL): What halting test should PRD cover? [PRD ]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie
> On product: PRD
> 
> Due to the action part in the rules, and the Retract in particular,
the
> semantics of production rule systems that PRD covers does not
guarantee
> that the execution of an arbitrary ruleset halts by starvation (that
is,
> by the absence of further rule instances to fire). OMG PRR does not
> specify any halting test, only mentioning in the description of the
> semantics that the cycle "is repeated until some state is met".
> - Should starvation be the only halting test covered by PRD (in which
case
> the question of halting is pushed to ISSUE-63: PICK) or should other
> halting test be covered as well?
> - If not only starvation: what halting test should be covered? What
> combination?
> - How should the intended halting test be notified to a RIF consumer?
> 
>

Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 15:52:27 UTC