I'm looking for feedback, I'll develop a Semantic Web Drools Module that
will be the subject of my Master Degree Tesis.
The idea is to use Eclipse Modelling Framework (EMF) for prototyping and
follow a Model Driven Architecture (MDA) where the source language is
Semantic of Business Vocabularies and Business Rules (SBVR) and the target
language is Drools DRL.
The mapping could be (PIM level):
- Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL)
- Ontology Web Language (OWL)
- Rule Interchange Format (RIF)
- REWERSE Rule Markup Language (R2ML)
It could be added to the module at the source UML or Entity Relationship
like models to transform the models into SBVR.
We would like to render a custom editor when a user double-clicks on a cell
that is present in web guided decision table in Guvnor 5.1 (or later). The
custom editor needs to be invoked for cells that represent a particular fact
model attribute only.
This is somewhat similar to WS custom forms functionality available for
guided business rules.
So far we have seen the
org.drools.guvnor.client.decisiontable.GuidedDecisionTableWidget class that
contains implementation for:
public void onCellDblClick(GridPanel grid,
in the GridCellListenerAdapter class that opens up text editor or drop down
We're new to GWT and Guvnor so would appreciate it if anyone can provide the
high level steps.
View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Attach-custom-editor-...
Sent from the Drools - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
For various reasons I'm trying out the Guided Editor for Business Rules in
the Guvnor Version 5 (Snapshot of 26 June from Hudson, deployed on JBoss App
I've created the Package / Category and uploaded a simple fact model (as
works in BRMS version 4). I create a new business rule using the guided
editor and the screen shows successfully with both 'When' and 'Then'
parts.Assume the next question is due to me missing something, but wanted to
When I press the green '+' to the right of the screen I am shown the message
/ dialog layer saying '
*Add a condition to the rule... *or* Add an action to the rule.
*Problem is that there doesn't appear to be a way of adding a condition or
action. The only thing I'm seeing in the logs is
* (Contexts.java:flushAndDestroyContexts:335) could not discover
*Am I missing something or should I come back to Guvnor later in the
I'm wondering if anyone has tried to use drools in a google android
application, and if so what problems did you have? I'd also be interested to
know if its even possible!
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Dear Drools Developers,
best wishes for a successful New Year 2012. As it is a leap year, you'll
have an extra day for pushing Drools ahead ;-)
While you are waiting for the bubbly to pop open you might pass the time by
solving (I suppose you'll use Drools) the following little problem:
Five friends (Bess, Ida, Hilda, Tony, Walt) live next to each other on a
small road. The numbers of their houses are 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9. They are 40,
42, 44, 48 and 50 years old. Each of them has a hobby - but no two have the
same. The hobbies are: paragliding, biking, volleyball, hiking und handball.
The Person living at house no. 3 is 4 years younger than Hilda.
Tony who is older than Walt lives in house no. 9.
Walt likes biking.
The woman who likes paragliding is 44 years old.
The person living at no. 5 likes to play a ball sport.
The 48-year-old person enjoys hiking.
The house number of the person who likes to play handball, is higher by 4
than the house number of the 40-year-old person.
Ida is not the youngest woman.
Who lives between Bess and the 42-year-old person?
How old is Tony?
What is the number of Walt's house?
Who is 40 years old?
What is the number of the house of the 48-year-old person?
What is Hilda's hobby?
6th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems
July 16-20, 2012
Freie Universitaet Berlin, Berlin, Germany
The objectives of the 6th ACM International Conference on Distributed
Event-Based Systems (DEBS) are to provide a forum dedicated to the
dissemination of original research, the discussion of practical insights,
and the reporting of relevant experience relating to event-based computing
that was previously scattered across several scientific and professional
communities. The conference also aims at providing a forum for academia and
industry to exchange ideas, for example, through industry papers and demo
DEBS 2012 Tracks
The conference will consist of the following tracks:
- Research track featuring high quality research paper on relevant topics.
- Industry track with two sub-tracks: industry full papers and industry
- Tutorials geared towards either the research or the industrial
- Demos and posters.
- The DEBS 2012 Grand Challenge is a problem solving competition for
commercial and research event-based systems.
- Gong show: The gong show will consist of short presentations about
visionary and outrageous ideas towards the next generation of event-based
systems. The audience will vote for the best idea.
- Doctoral workshop
- Abstract submission for research and Industry papers and Industry
experience reports: February 27, 2012
- Grand Challenge participation intent (non-binding): February 27, 2012
- Research, Industry and Tutorial papers submission, and (optional) Industry
experience report submission: March 5, 2012
- Grand Challenge problem description: March 7, 2012
- Author notification for tutorials, research and Industry papers, and
Industry experience reports: April 30, 2012
- Poster and demo submission: May 2, 2012
- Grand Challenge Solutions including 4 page papers: May 2, 2012
- Doctoral Workshop submission: May 2, 2012
- Grand Challenge abstracts: May 2, 2012
- Author notification for poster, demo, Challenge, PhD papers: May 16, 2012
- Conference: July 16-20, 2012
Submissions will be accepted in the following tracks:
All submissions must be original and unpublished. Accepted papers will be
published by ACM and disseminated through the ACM Digital Library.
More information about the tracks and submission information can be found on
the DEBS 2012 website:
Scope of the Conference
The topics addressed by the conference include (but are not
Models, Architectures and Paradigms
- Event-driven architectures
- Basic interaction models
- Event algebras, event schemas and type systems
- Languages for event correlation and patterns, streaming and continuous
queries, data fusion
- Models for static and dynamic environments
- Complex event processing
- Design and programming methodologies
- Event-based business process management and modeling
- Experimental methodologies
- Performance modeling and prediction based on analytic approaches
- Functional Reactive Programming
Middleware Infrastructures for Event-Based Computing
- Federated event-based systems
- Middleware for actuator and sensor networks
- Algorithms and protocols
- Optimization techniques for event-based (or streaming) systems
- Event dissemination based on p2p systems
- Context and location awareness
- Fault-tolerance, reliability, availability, and recovery
- Security issues
- Mobility and resource constrained device support
- Streaming queries, transformations, or correlation engines
- Logic-based event processing
- Semantic event processing
- Business Process Management with events
Applications, Experiences, and Requirements
- Use cases and applications of event-based systems
- Real-world application deployments using event-based middleware
- Domain-specific deployments of event-based systems
- Real-world data characterizing event-based applications
- Benchmarks, performance evaluations, and testbeds
- Application requirements for next-generation event-based solutions
- Relation to other architectures
- Enterprise application integration
- Event-driven business process management
- Information logistics
- Seamless integration of event-based mechanisms into middleware platforms
Avoid the patent encumbered "The Decision Model" like the plague:
The Decision Model IP Trap - Part Deux
Posted by Mark Proctor
A while back I published this article titled the "The Decision Model
Trap", http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html. In
short it highlighted the dangers of adopting a patented methodology and
my opinion on Red Hat's stance on the matter. The patent is owned by the
Knowledge Partners International (KPI) <http://www.kpiusa.com/> who push
My article was referenced in a thread, started by Jacob Feldman from
Open Rules, in a linkedin group for "The Decision Model". It's a closed
group, A copy is provided online here
<http://www.athico.com/TDM/tdm.htm>. The original link is here
I'll quote Jacob below:
"First I learned about a possible patent for The Decision Model from
Mark Proctor -- see
http://blog.athico.com/2011/11/decision-model-ip-trap.html. But it was
impossible to find any references to it on the web. Besides, neither
Larry nor Barb ever mentioned anything about the patent (at least to
me). So, I thought that was just a misunderstanding.
However, on Dec. 6, 2011 USPTO apparently granted a patent to Larry and
Barb -- see http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8073801.html. I believe it
would be only helpful if the Decision Model authors openly explain their
position regarding this patent to all of us. Otherwise, such a "holiday
present" may scare the entire decision modelling community to stay away
from TDM. "
The thread turned hostile with a KPI representative demanding I clarify
my motivations and then resorting to belittling me -- but I'll come back
to that later. The result was that eventually KPI made an announcement
on their objectives and intentions with regards to the patent and TDM.
The link for this is here
Lets look at this briefly:
Objectives of the Patent Policy:
* To ensure that we are able to evolve what we started without risking
an infringement of someone else's patent.
* To share the ideas behind The Decision Model in an orderly way.
* To protect its rigor, hence its reputation."
With the current insanity of the various patent systems, having to play
the patent game, just to protect yourself is a reality. However
restricting 3rd party use of that patent is not necessary to achieve the
later two goals. Trademark and certification is a perfectly adequate, if
not far superior and more effective way to achieve those goals. Unless
they have other objectives, not listed, I invite them to license their
patent under terms similar to that in the Apache Software License.
Then lets get onto their next statement:
"Vendors who provide Open Source Software, and who wish to incorporate
TDM can obtain a royalty-free license for Open Source software. There
will be a certification fee and process for Open Source vendors who
desire this optional software certification."
Talk about the classic hunny trap. Ring ring, ring ring..... "hello?...
Hey KPI it's 2002 calling, they want their business ideas back". For
those that don't get the joke it's a play on the "hey hunny, its the 80s
calling, they want their hair back" :) Seriously the world has moved on,
it's clued up, they don't fall for that clap trap any more. KPI, there
is an awesome website, that covered the SCO débâcle, called groklaw.net
- very recommended reading. If you are an OSS vendor and take PKI up on
their offer, you aren't not Open Source - end of story. Just don't do it
to yourself, you deserve better, your customers deserve better.
It's old news now that PKI through a partner is trying to infect the OMG
Decision Model and Notation standard effort,
http://www.omgwiki.org/dmn-rfp/doku.php. Private emails have been sent
between the various heavyweights in the OMG process. I think the general
sentiment was "not a chance in hell". So that's one nail in the coffin.
A proprietary and encumbered methodology will die when faced with an
un-encumbered official and open standard.
They may however try to argue that their patent covers the resulting DMN
standard, regardless of whether the DMG group accepts their proposal.
The result on the industry in general could be chilling. I would urge
PKI to re-read groklaw.net about what happened to SCO when they tried to
enforce bogus patents. Yes that's right, "SC...Who?" - it's doubtful
your reputations and company brand would survive if you became hostile
on an open standard and/or an open source implementation of that
standard. RIP TDM.....
So let's now get back to that linked in forum posting. As the thread was
started by quoting my initial blog, when someone asked what impact this
could have on the industry, I felt that I had every right to re-iterate
a key point from the article. That while TDM continues to be patented
the industry will move around and beyond it, and that the work we are
doing lifting from the extensive research made available in the Prologa
and XTT2 will also make it's patent irrelevant.
Michael Grohs, VP of Business Development @ KPI, jumped in demanding I
declare my motivations -- as if I was some how being underhanded. I
don't think he had taken the time to read my article. I think it makes
my stance and motivations very clear. But then I believe he was more
interested in posturing than substance. I'll show two key points from
the article, I think they show my stance and motivations pretty clearly.
Open Source and Patents do not mix. When you get software from Red Hat
you are guaranteed its 100% Open Source, not maybe OS or partly OS. From
top to bottom, inside and out 100% OS goodness.
In the mean time we in the Drools team will continue to take our
inspiration from the excellent and unencumbered research projects;
Prologa and XTT2.
The thread continued to regress into noise. With further indications
that I was trying to be underhanded, by demanding I declare my
motivations. It was insinuated that I don't live in the real world, that
the patents I have through Red Hat make me hypercritical for demanding
"but then world is full of people who believe that they are entitled to
special rights which they believe other people should not have. "
In general there seemed to be a lack of understanding on the use of
defensive patents within OSS, particularly on how they have virtually no
restrictions, beyond that defensive clause -- as specified in the Apache
Software License. There also seemed to be a lack of understanding on the
walled garden patents create, shutting off the OSS research world -
which is why I oppose this so vehemently.
Finally Michael, a VP @PKI, just decided to get full out snotty on me. I
couldn't figure out if he was trying to belittle me or indicate that I
was being underhanded by concealing that I work for Red Hat -- or maybe
both. I guess when you have nothing of substance to say, just use insults:
Michael:"Mark I understand that your and Edson's patent is assigned to
your employer Red Hat and not to the World, but correct me if I am
wrong. So it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting. "
I apologise in advance for the slightly over pompous use of "I". Those
that know me, know that while I evangelise the technology, that I will
big up the Drools community in general and it's achievements - I do not
try to add grandeur directly to my personage, that actually I'm a little
shy of direct attention. I believe Michael thought I was some peon of a
developer, scuttling along to my masters commands. So given the
circumstances, I felt that a point should be made:
Michael:"I understand that your and Edson's patent is assigned to your
employer Red Hat and not to the World, but correct me if I am wrong. So
it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting. "
mark:"I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make with this
comment. When you have to reach for semantic interpretations it makes
you sound bitter and doesn't become an industry professional. I'm not
even sure I should dignify it with a response.... but then I wouldn't be
"So it is actually Red Hat who does the gifting"
I don't make it any secret that I'm employee of Red Hat, I'm very proud
to work for the worlds number one Open Source company.
But I don't know if that is the point you are trying to make, or if you
are trying to belittle me by arguing semantics on the appropriation of
the term "we". Much as Suleiman keeps trying to talk down to me by using
terms like "real world" and "special rights". So I guess I should answer
both possibilities, neither are becoming for you.
I'm the co-founder and creator of Drools, I did this before joining
JBoss. The choice to license Drools under the Apache Software License
was mine and done before joining JBoss - JBoss was later acquired by Red
Hat. It is this license, that I chose, that grants those free and
perpetual rights. In fact it is this license that ensures that neither I
nor Red Hat nor anyone else contributing to Drools project may file a
patent that is not covered under this free and perpetual rights, when
that patent relates to Drools.
While at Red Hat it was my choice to file the patent and my choice to do
the work necessary for the patent, I could have chosen not to file a
patent. Edson also had those same personal choices and we did the work
I would say considering those choices that I made I have a write to use
the term "we". We as in myself, Edson and Red Hat.
"and not to the World"
You are trying to argue the points of assignment and usage and gift? I'm
not sure which part of the following you don't get:
"a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make,
have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the
It doesn't get more "gifting" than this. Well maybe it can. Having
watched a user gorge themselves on christmas pudding, mince pies and
port. I could wrap the patent in silver paper with stars on it, tie a
red bow around it, put on my Red Fedora and climb down the chimney and
ram it down their throats. Is that "gifty" enough for you? :) to clarify
the term "their" I mean "the world".
Anyway I'm looking forward to what Jan Vanthienen, one of the decision
table godfathers, has to say on the matter in the new year. I'm guessing
that he's not pleased that someone took his work, changed the names used
in the terminology and patented it.