[rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts
Edson Tirelli
tirelli at post.com
Fri Feb 2 11:13:24 EST 2007
Hi Vlad,
This is a case where you can apply business rules with good results.
In the end, it all depends on how you model your Business Objects,
but lets get some examples:
> 1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching
> primary account '(z+1)xxy'
> - [this one is true for the dataset above]
My understanding is that you are validating your accounting plan, so
you may have an Account object in your model. So, if you want to report
inconsistencies, you can do something like:
rule "missing accounts"
when
$a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 )
not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) )
then
// $a does not have a matching primary account
end
Please, note that the "formulas" I used above may not be the best way
to do it... they are only a possible representation of what you said.
> 2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) -
> sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0
> - [this one is also true]
Here, it seems you are refering to a set of transactions, so you
might have a set of transaction objects to represent the transaction in
your sample. So, a possible representation would be:
rule "transaction consistency"
when
Transaction( $id : id )
$credits: Double( )
from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation ==
"credit", $amount : amount ),
init( double balance = 0 ),
action( balance += $amount ),
result( new Double( balance ) ) );
$debits: Double( )
from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation ==
"debit", $amount : amount ),
init( double balance = 0 ),
action( balance -= $amount ),
result( new Double( balance ) ) );
eval( ! $credits.equals( $debits ) )
then
// inconsistency for transaction $id
end
Again, this is not the only way or the best way... it is just an example.
Also, for the above examples, I used syntax/features of the jbrules
3.1 version.
Hope it helps.
[]s
Edson
Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote:
>Ok, approx data set:
>
>Primary Account | Secondary Account | Operation | Amount | Type | Owner
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>0001 | | debit | 100 | A | M
>1001 | | credit | 80 | A | F
>1001 | | credit | 20 | X | F
>0002 | 2002 | debit | 50 | B | M
>2002 | | dedit | 20 | B | M
>1002 | | credit | 70 | C | M
>
>Rules:
>
>1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching
>primary account '(z+1)xxy'
> - [this one is true for the dataset above]
>2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) -
>sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0
> - [this one is also true]
>3) OwnerOf (primary_account, matching_primary, secondary_account) must be of
>the same gender
> - [this one is false - 0001 owner must be 'F']
>
>.... The kind of the rules above... The dataset is more complex and the
>rules are a bit more involved, but this should give an idea.
>
>Thanks for all suggestions!
>
>Vlad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rhoden
>Sent: 01 February 2007 17:49
>To: 'Rules Users List'
>Subject: RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing
>ofinterconnected facts
>
>Can you post a couple of example conditions with a dataset you want to
>check?
>
>-Michael
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir
>(MOH)
>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:04 PM
>To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>Subject: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing
>ofinterconnected facts
>
>Hi,
>
>
>
>I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below.
>
>
>
>The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around 400
>different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the
>debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the
>correlation between different facts:
>
>- eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be
>equal 0
>
>- if one account got credited, there should be another account
>(within the same dataset) which was debited
>
>- if there are accounts starting with some letter combination,
>there also should be
>
>- etc
>
>
>
>In other words, each rule describes
>
>- the subset of facts to be analyzed
>
>- the rules to be checked against this subset
>
>
>
>It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction
>Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which
>sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within the
>same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data
>facts.
>
>
>
>On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not
>sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this
>kind of task be reformulated somehow?
>
>
>
>Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach
>would be greatly appreciated!
>
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>Vlad
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
More information about the rules-users
mailing list