[rules-users] Previous mailing list archives

[Rahul Phadnis]

I understand that the jboss rules mailing list
migrated to the current server recently.

Can somebody tell me where can I find archives from
the previous mailing list?

-Rahul

--- Edson Tirelli <tirelli at post.com> wrote:

> 
>    Alexander,
> 
>    Seems a really interesting project indeed!
>    Trying to answer:
> 
> 1. I'm not sure what you mean by "rule hierarchy".
> Drools does not 
> support rule "inheritence" if that is what you mean
> by hierarchy... can 
> you please ellaborate?
> 
> 2. Dynamically adding rules to a rulebase will not
> force a full 
> reevaluation. Only the new rules are evaluated and
> if they eventually 
> have Patterns that may be shared, they are not even
> evaluated, as they 
> already were.
> 
>    The problem I think you will face is that Drools
> does not support 
> uncertanty reasoning. You will need to code
> uncertanty by hand if you 
> use drools. I suggest you a POC to check how it
> goes.
> 
>    []s
>    Edson
>   
> Alexander Richter wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > I work in a bioinformatics group and we're
> interested in using Drools  
> > for setting up an assertion engine for biological
> processes.
> > We have over 300 genomes ( == sets of facts), each
> with upwards of  
> > 10K genes/features with annotations ( == facts).
> We want to be able  
> > to predict whether various biological processes
> exist, based on  
> > presence of the annotated genes that are the
> components of the  
> > process. Asserted processes are not black and
> white; we may have  
> > various levels of certainty, based on the
> percentage of component  
> > genes found (because we can't be certain that not
> finding a certain  
> > annotation means the the gene isn't in the genome
> -- it could mean  
> > that we just didn't find it). In addition,
> processes tend to be  
> > composed of sub-processes. The assertions then get
> used to make  
> > additional annotations on the features, which we
> then use to help us  
> > look for missing components. Therefore, we need to
> be able to display  
> > the decisions that led to a specific assertion, as
> well as the  
> > features that went into the component assertions.
> > In addition, we regularly add new processes, as we
> get new ways to  
> > annotate genes, or read about newly worked-out
> processes. We really  
> > don't want to have to run all rules against all
> the genomes every  
> > time we add a new rule, but just add that rule.
> >
> > We would like to define the actual rules for the
> assertions in  
> > Drools, but don't know how we would do certain
> parts.
> > 1) Can one walk through the rule hierarchy from a
> given rule and  
> > tease out the hierarchy of rules and the facts
> that went into that rule?
> > 2) Is it possible to add a rule, or set of
> interacting rules, and  
> > have them incrementally evaluated, instead of
> forcing full  
> > evaluation? Alternatively, can the rulesets be
> individually defined  
> > and run in such a way that they interact?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alexander Richter
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>