W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: ISSUE-64 (PICK): Conflict resolution strategies to be covered by PRD? [PRD ]

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0700
Message-ID: <48608521.8090902@oracle.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:45 UTC