Semantic Web Drools Module, Request for Feedbak
by Xavier Breton
Hi,
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)
- RuleML
- 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.
Regards
Xavier Breton
10 years, 9 months
Attach custom editor on guided decision table cell
by c3310082
Hi,
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,
int rowIndex,
int colIndex,
EventObject e)
in the GridCellListenerAdapter class that opens up text editor or drop down
editor.
We're new to GWT and Guvnor so would appreciate it if anyone can provide the
high level steps.
Thanks
--
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.
12 years, 1 month
Guided Editor in BRMS / Guvnor Version 5 (Snapshot of 26 June)
by Paul Browne
Folks,
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
Server 4.2.2GA).
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
double check:
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
transaction status
*Am I missing something or should I come back to Guvnor later in the
development Cycle?
Thanks
Paul
12 years, 9 months
Drools on android
by Justin King
Hi All,
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!
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Justin King
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/ictstaff/justinking
--
Regards,
Justin King
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/ictstaff/justinking
12 years, 11 months
Ant Work Item
by Mark Proctor
I saw this jira and thought it's a nice idea:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2445
Should be able to select either build.xml files on a path/classpath or
paste in a xml. The GUI should show targets and other information (xml
comments doc etc) and allow targets to be selected with variable
assignments for execution.
Any takers?
Mark
13 years, 6 months
@metadata: status; compatibility issues
by Wolfgang Laun
The current parser handles metadata annotations
'@' *Identifier* '(' *Text* ')'
so that the annotations for one entity (e.g., a rule) are available as a
Map<String,Object>, where the key is given by the *Identifier *and the value
of the entry is available according to
*if* *Text* can be *completely* parsed as *Identifier* '='
*Expression*(where
*Expression* is whatever the DRL parser accepts as an expression, i.e., an
extended subset of Java expressions)
*then*
the value is a Map<String,String>
*else
the *value is a String, with trimmed leading and trailing white space,
but preserving all embedded white space
Changes compared to 5.1.1:
- no Map was ever returned in 5.1.1,
- @m( "foo" ) in 5.1.1. returned "foo", but 5.2.0 returns "\"foo\"".
- @m( "foo", "bar" ) in 5.1.1. returned "foo\", \"bar", but 5.2.0 returns
"\"foo\", \"bar\""
- comments between "@...(" and ")" are now handled consistently but were
not in 5.1.1
Possibly considered a problem for 5.2.0 or later:
- No check is made for duplicate "outer" map keys; entries are overwritten.
- Repeated "inner" map keys produce concatenated entries, e.g. @m( k = 1, k
= "a" ) returns "1a" as the value for key "k".
- Returning (arbitrary) expressions, unchanged, as String now may cause
incompatibilitie with more sophisticated processing (if this ever should be
considered).
-W
13 years, 7 months
Cherry picking with git from master to 5.2.x branch
by Geoffrey De Smet
Because git is new for many of us, here's a short intro on how to cherry
pick.
From the command line
===============
* do you changes on master
* commit and push those changes
* Use "git log" or the commit list, to know the commit id's of your
commits
* checkout the release branch:
o only 1 module:
+ cd guvnor
+ git checkout 5.2.x
o all modules at once
+ droolsjbpm-build-bootstrap/script/branches/git-checkout-all.sh
5.2.x 5.1.x
* cherry pick every commit id you want to cherry-pick
o git cherry-pick 5ab86f81ad10cd52f99496f2f5d8812176fc3a43
+ If there's no merge conflict, you're done for this commit
+ If there's a merge conflict:
# open the conflictingFile, fix it
# git add conflictingFile
# git commit -c
5ab86f81ad10cd52f99496f2f5d8812176fc3a43
* test if it works
* push those changes
* checkout master again
o only 1 module:
+ cd guvnor
+ git checkout master
o all modules at once
+ droolsjbpm-build-bootstrap/script/branches/git-checkout-all.sh
master master
With IntelliJ
=======
* Checkout the release branches (as described above)
* open bottom panel "Changes", tab "Log", click button "Refresh"
(icon 2 yellow arrows), wait
* select your change, click button "Cherry pick" (icon 2 cherries)
* commit those changes. In the top right corner, make sure you select
* test and push and checkout master again (as described above)
With Eclipse
========
Idunno, but Egit is suppose to support cherry picking too :)
--
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
13 years, 7 months
syntax proposal for unification/binding
by Wolfgang Laun
This is a reaction to
http://blog.athico.com/2011/04/drools-back-chaining-unification-syntax.html
Let me begin with a short statement on what we (I'm not alone, here, at my
company)
think makes a SW product (especially a programming language) attractive: we
might
call it "quality of service". One of the more important aspects of this
concept
is the degree of support the programming environment provides for
programmers,
especially when we consider that programmers are human, of various levels
of skill and (temporarily) subject to anything from heat to migraine.
Getting good
diagnostics for as many errors as possible is one way of meeting this
expectancy,
knowing that the earlier one detects an error the cheaper it is. Finally, we
have also
frequently observed that implementors of some programming environment
rarely are confronted with its real world deployment; moreover, there's
also the issue that certain application areas are subject to requirements
that
cherish a very high level of reliability (but not based on human factors).
The last
sentence should not be understood as a criticism for members on any
particular team - it's merely saying that nobody knows it all.
The problem that Mark addresses in the blog is actually very simple.
Up to now, we simply have the binding of a variable to some fact or field,
which is written as
*Identfier **:*
and indicates the introduction of a new identifier within the current scope.
The DRL parser is capable of detecting the reference of an undeclared
identifier, and the DRL parser will duly notify you if you try to bind an
already bound identifier. A bound identifier can be used freely, LHS and
RHS, but always in an expression.
Backward Chaining (BC) introduces the need for unification, which, of
course,
is an algorithm and not (primarily) an issue of syntax. We need a way of
associating an identifier with any argument of the (new) query invocation
or a field of a a pattern, both in the legacy ("named") and in the newly
introduced "positional" form.
Sticking to *"Identfier **:" *throughout means that there is no way of
detecting
undeclared or duplicate usage.
Therefore, we propose -- for the "named" form to use
- *Identfier **: **fieldname ** *for binding / unifying an identifier
for the first time, and
- *Identfier **= **fieldname ** *for all successive unification
references
(Notice that no semantics regarding the in or out usage is implied.) For the
"positional" form, we propose to use
- *Identfier **: *for binding / unifying an identifier for the first
occurrence, and
- just *Identfier *for all following occurrences,
- and (optionally, but probably useful) just a colon *: *for the
"anonymous" variable,
Traditional binding remains as it is; using "bound" variables in expressions
is not
affected; all checks made in 5.1. can be continued.
The additional colon for positional declarative unification should not be a
hardship,
especially when we consider the nice analogy to the anonymous variable being
written with an "empty" name.
For Drools programmers, the only "price" to pay is the "=" whenever they *use
an already
bound or unified variable*. Well, safety belts have to be put on...
A last remark: Notations using a minimum of symbols and syntactic variants
are
indeed more pleasing to the eye, especially when presented in small
examples. The
real test, however, is whether it can stand up to being used in more
demanding situations.
Cheers
-W
On 22 April 2011 17:06, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
> Based on the previous BC thread I've written a blog to try and get more
> engagement. I've put this under a new thread as the other one was
> getting quite long.
> http://blog.athico.com/2011/04/drools-back-chaining-unification-syntax.html
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
13 years, 7 months
