- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0700
- To: Rule Interchange Format Working Group WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I think the following are widely agreed upon: 1. rule priority 2. recency of activation (LIFO) Less commonly, there are 2 boolean properties that could be attributed to groups of rules: 1. mutex: the group members are mutually exclusive, meaning that the firing of any group member results in the deactivation of matching activations (matching substitutions) in the other group members 2. no-repeat: no actions in any group member can generate activations for any member of that same group I believe the PRR sequential mode is equivalent to putting the rules in a no-repeat group with priority related to the rules ordinal position in the source PRR ruleset. Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > ISSUE-64 (PICK): Conflict resolution strategies to be covered by PRD? [PRD ] > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/ > > Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie > On product: PRD > > - Some PR languages permit fairly complex conflict resolution strategies: what conflict resolution strategies should PRD cover? > - What combinations? > - Should there be a default strategy, and, if yes: which one? > - How to notify the intended strategy or combination to the consumer? > - OMG PRR does not identify specific conflict resolution strategies, but two operation modes: forward chaining and sequential (but the description of the semantics makes the forward chaining mode explicitely dependent on a conflict resolution strategy that is not defined further). Should PRD cover some form of a sequential mode and, if yes: which? > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 05:29:14 UTC