View source

From RIF

You do not have permission to do that, for the following reasons:

• The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Sysops, WG.
• You must confirm your e-mail address before editing pages. Please set and validate your e-mail address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

== PRD meeting 11 February 2009 == Place: ILOG, Gentilly Attendees: Changhai Ke (ILOG), Carole-Ann Matignon (FIC), Carlos Serrano-Morales (FIC), Paul Vincent (Tibco), csma (ILOG) Discussion along the presentation of the [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/images/b/bf/PRDtutorial.pdf PRD tutorial]. Explanation of how's and why's, etc. Issues raised, questions left open (the points are listed in the order the first occured in the discussion; there is no sense of priority in that list): * representation of Null/unknown/... * Table, indexable? * Need for an object-like construct, allowing tests on attributes values, chaining attributes, etc without requiring intermediate variables; naybe method (or is that phase 2?) * Access to data model (at least XML-S) ** Would a list data type be enough for phase 1? * Need for a Rule construct ** to attach priorities and other rule-level, behaviour-controlling annotations (e.g. active date etc)); ** bad design that the Group construct bears information that is ruleset-levl (e.g. the conflict resolution strategy) as well as infomation that is rule-level (e.g. priority); ** could be a split of Group; could use the Implyes for the purpose (that would require that an unconditional Do is not a RULE anymore); * Global (shared) patterns? * Ordering rules in a ruleset (other than by priority)? ** <Group rif:order="yes">? * PROPOSED: remove the subclass atom from PRD (as it was removed from Core) ** No use case for it in rule conditions, and it is not assertable anyway * The open tie-breaker in the default conflict resolution strategy will really control the execution in many cases: shall we add one (or a choice of) more discriminating selection rule to the current ones (to wit: refraction+priority+recency)? ** ordering of the rules in the ruleset could be a candidate (because it makes intuitive sense for the rules author) * Fair Isaac prefers a more compact (XML) syntax, higher level, less logic-looking syntax ** usability in a business rule context much higher priority than over Core compatibility

Return to PRD F2F Wednesday 11 February.