- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:01:01 -0700
- To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Paul Vincent wrote: > From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr] > > Paul Vincent wrote: > > > > My thoughts are: > > ... > > [2] If there is no inferencing, then a rule cycle will only complete > > once for any ruleset in scope. Ruleflow-defined rule systems only have 1 > > ruleset in scope at a time. Therefore, CR is not required. Further, > > usually such rulesets will be exclusive (have only a single rule whose > > condition matches the current state of WM). > > Interesting. Do you have evidence of that? [PV>] Well, the definition of ruleflow *normally* is the orchestration for execution of rulesets. It therefore follows that rulesets A followed by B followed by C will be in scope at disjoint times, and are therefore exclusive. However, I'll leave the formal proof of that to someone else :) By the way, it's probably worth mentioning that CR AFAIK refers to "rule conflicts" ie the choice between 2 rules, not 2+ rule instance ordering for execution. I'm not sure what the term for rule instance ordering is ... maybe rule instance ordering? > > Cheers, > > Christian
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 18:02:53 UTC