[rules-users] decision tables and 'default' or 'else' conditions

[Joost de Vries]

Hi Edson,

I've abstracted our use case since I gather you don't understand the dutch
legal system. :-)

Given a decision table like this ( I hope you are able to read the HTML post
correctly)













I

A

p

II

B

q

III

C

r

IV

D

s

none of the above

E

t

F

u

none of the above

v

 we are looking for a keyword that has a meaning similar to "none of the
above"

The point of this functionality for us is that the business analyst is only
interested in the values I to IV but possibly there are 20 or more values.

The semantics that we need would be such that this would translate into the
following rules

I and A then p

II and B then q

III and C then r

IV and D then s

not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and E then t

not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and F then u

not(I) and not(II) and not(III) and not(IV) and not(A) and not(B) and not(C)
and not(D) then v

I hope this answers your questions.

We will need this functionality pretty soon.....

Can you give an indication what the priority is for you guys for this
functionality?


groetjes uit Nederland,


Joost


2007/2/7, Edson Tirelli < tirelli at post.com>:
>
>
>     Joost,
>
>     Unfortunatelly, there is no feature implemented for that. But we are
> discussing, specially the semantics we want to define to such statements
> ( we call them "else" and "otherwise" ).
>     If you have a real use case and you can describe it for us, it may
> help on deciding which way to go, and at the same time fullfil your
> needs in the future.
>
>     Our biggest questions are:
>
> * should the "else/otherwise" part be fired only once if no rule is
> triggered? or should it fire for each tuple that does not trigger
> previous rules? What if rules in the "otherwise" group use different
> tuples to activate?
>
> * should "else/otherwise" apply to the whole LHS of the rules? Or should
> there be a way to specify only part of the LHS (like a tag)?
>
>     Input welcome.
>
>     Edson
>
> Joost de Vries wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're using excel decision tables to specify our business rules.
> > In one column we enumerate several condition values and describe a
> > specific effect.
> > We'd like to offer business analysts te possibility of describing
> > succinctly what the effect is 'for all other values'.
> > That could be described as an 'else' or 'default' rule.
> >
> > In other words; we don't want to burden business analysts with the
> > necessity to enumerate all other values.
> >
> > What is the right way to do that?
> >
> > Thanks for you help.
> >
> > groetjes,
> > Joost
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



-- 
Joost de Vries
06 22375323
werk:  joost.de.vries at ordina.nl
privé:  joost at ziener.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070213/7257c00e/attachment.html