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

[Joost de Vries]

Ok, I think that HTML tables get mangled. I'll mail it to you directly.

2007/2/13, Joost de Vries <drools at ziener.org>:
>
> 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
>



-- 
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/abbf7aeb/attachment.html