[rules-users] What is inference and how does it facilitate good rule design and maintenance

[Mark Proctor]

Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Leo's reply reads:
> "In this scenario, aren't we moving logic that would be better
> expressed in a declarative form (drl) to facts that are coded in
> java?"
>
> I don't think this is an issue. Extracting a fact's property derived
> from one or more constraints being true as an additional fact isn't
> doing what Leo is afraid of at all. The CEs resulting in the assertion
> of this inferred relation are still there in the DRL.
>
> I'd be more worried about the consequences of using this approach
> heavily, in large scale Fact DBs. Adding, to N basic entity facts O(N)
> additional facts that just express the truth value of a simple or
> compound constraint is bound to have some impact on resource
> requirements.
>
> -*-
>
> It is, however, very desirable to be able to write LHS in a more
> structured way, not being forced to either repeat CEs or create
> additional facts establishing secondary properties (such as isAdult).
>
> However, the abstraction technique for expressions (and this includes
> the Boolean expressions in LHS) has been invented a long time ago:
> functions! If we were able to define a CE function (I'll use
> "property" to distinguish this from plain DRL functions) like this
>
>    <result-type> property <name>( <fact-type> <name> ){ <expression> }
>
> and use this in LHS the way we are used to, e.g.
>
>   boolean property adult(  Person p){ p.age >= 18}
>
>   rule x
>   when
>       Person( ..., adult == true )
>   then ... end
>
> It should also be possible to define property functions with multiple
> fact arguments, or functions with additional parameters that aren't
> fact types, e.g.
>
>   double property weight( Thing t, double rho ){ t.volume*rho }
>
>   rule y
>      $m : Material( $rho : density )
>     Thing( material == m, weight( $rho ) > 1000 )
>
> -W
>   
What you just described there is prolog "like" in nature, we have some 
ideas around that. My BRF talk last week showed some ideas on how we can 
integrate POSL. The are upsides and downsides to fact inferrence and 
query based inferrence - hopefully we can provide both worlds :)

Mark
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Leonardo Gomes
> <leonardo.f.gomes at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I think I missed something on that post. Just posted a reply.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Leo.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> Just published this, where I'm trying to explain good rule design in
>>> terms more familiar to software developers.
>>> http://blog.athico.com/2009/11/what-is-inference-and-how-does-it.html
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think, and hopefully people have other ideas they
>>> can add back in.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20091110/530e0801/attachment.html