2010/9/14 Mark Proctor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org">mproctor@codehaus.org</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im"><br>
</div>
Exactly, we don't want to mature and promote a proprietary XML and
waste the time and create the confusion from not following a
standard.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br>Any XML standard for rules and especially production system rules is way behind what systems like Drools, Jess and others are providing. True, a common subset comprising patterns, constraints and FOL quantifiers is there, but other features that enhance the expressive power of a Rule Language are missing or digressing.<br>
<br>As for the "common subset", I'm not at all convinced that there is general agreement of how to deal with the akward CE "or" with its restrictions and pitfalls.<br><br> Also, there is the issue of data types...<br>
<br>From a Rule Vendor's point of view, there might be some commercial incentive to implement an import from some standard rule XML, but not so much for an export. And if you don't have an export from RBS x, why would you need an import for RBS Y? But possibly I'm missing the obvious ;-)<br>
<br>Cheers<br>Wolfgang<br><br> <br></div></div><br>