[rules-dev] Automatic handling of relationships

I thought of a simple, yet powerful idea, anyone want to give this ago? It will be the start of making ontologies more sanily usable for java developers. Person @relation(name="OwnerPetRelation", verb="IsOwnerOf") Set<Pet> pets; Pet @relation(name="OwnerPetRelation", verb="IsOwnedByf") Person owner; IsOwnerOf and IsOwnedBy do not live on the classpath. The engine detects those annotations and generates them as internal classes. Or actually it can be one class, where it's able to use the two keywords to reference that class in either direction. When you insert your Persons and Pets, the relations are automatically inserted too (assuming there are rules that use them). This allows people to more naturally explore the relational aspect of their data, without having to create and insert the relations themselves. Once a Relation is being maintained by the engine, any updates to the underlying collection will result in relations being added and removed. If we build in relation inferrence, to avoid the extra binding, it would mean that by simply annotating their classes people can do the following (Assuming Cat is a type of Pet): When Person( location == London ) IsOwnerOf() Cat( color == "Tabby") .... The above will get all my london people and their tabby cats. The simply placement of the IsOwnerOf() pattern, would be nice if () was optioal, would constrain the Cat to those related to the Owner. i.e. the short hand equivalent of: $p : Person( location == London ) IsOwnerOf( owner == $p, $c : Cat ) Cat( this == $c, color == "Tabby") I think that's powerful and provides for a hyrbid OO and Relational modelling approaches, asthey can still use graph notation: person.pets[0].color == "tabby" This also solves the question that people always ask, how do I insert my collection. With that in place there would still be plenty more to do, like constraints, but it would be a start to improving Drools' relationahip programming "out of the box" capabilities. So who's game? Mark