4:21 a.m.
Adrian, Wolfgang, all,
I've had issues translating the RHS java code for instance (c.f. XSLT
stylesheet).
It would be nice to have the translation protocol to/from RIF provided
with the specification, at least for the main rule engines.
All the best,
Pierre
On 2/10/2011 8:07 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
On 9 February 2011 22:11, Edson Tirelli <ed.tire...(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ed.tire...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Pierre,
Good to see works like yours being done.
Drools has an internal canonical model that we use to round
trip rules between the syntaxes we support. The best way of
supporting "RIF" in Drools is to simply add a parser that parses
RIF and populates the canonical model. From that we have a DRL
"dumper" that generates DRL, enabling the RIF->DRL translation.
Also, if we create a RIF "dumper", one can then generate RIF rules
from the canonical model, enabling DRL->RIF translation. That
assumes that there is a 1-to-1 semantic mapping between RIF and
DRL (I believe there is, but didn't checked).
Do you mean that all of RIF can be expressed in DRL? Then I'd agree.
But you can't express all of DRL in RIF.
-W
A translator RIF-PRD2DRL should be "conformant RIF-PRD consumer" as in the
recommendation
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/#Semantics-preserving_tran...;.
A translator DRL2RIF-PRD should be a "conformant RIF-PRD producer".
For example, a heuristic validation (test-based) may work in a
"round-trip" i.e. take a Drools ruleset R, do R_RIF= DRL2RIF-PRD(R) then
R1= RIF-PRD2DRL(R_RIF) and compare answers by running Drools on R and R1
When Wolfgang said that not all Drools constructs can translate to RIF-PRD
I assume he is thinking to some lets say "nonlogical" or "procedural"
Drools constructs. However, because RIF can encode any partial recursive
function, DRL2RIF should be always possible i.e. when translating a ruleset
from Drools, one may obtain not only PR rules but, in addition some RIF-BLD
rules too.
Therefore I assume that there is very nice work to do.
-.Adrian Giurca
5:36 a.m.
New subject: RIF PRD translation effort to/from Drools & Jess
What about these DRL CEs and CE phrases:
forall
from
from collect
from accumulate with function
from accumulate with init/action/result
Then, some rule attributes
no-loop
agenda-group
salience ( <expression> ) // not a *literal* expression
What about temporal operators and other CEP features?
And I'm not even going to be mean and discuss plugins such as user-defined
evaluators
or user-defined accumulate functions.
As for DRL in XML, one might simply add JAXB annotations to the classes
representing a DRL Package and its constiuents. And then marshal and
schemagen. Piece of cake, theoretically ;-)
-W
On 10 February 2011 10:21, <pdl(a)agh.edu.pl> wrote:
Adrian, Wolfgang, all,
I've had issues translating the RHS java code for instance (c.f. XSLT
stylesheet).
It would be nice to have the translation protocol to/from RIF provided
with the specification, at least for the main rule engines.
All the best,
Pierre
On 2/10/2011 8:07 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
On 9 February 2011 22:11, Edson Tirelli <ed.tire...(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ed.tire...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Pierre,
Good to see works like yours being done.
Drools has an internal canonical model that we use to round
trip rules between the syntaxes we support. The best way of
supporting "RIF" in Drools is to simply add a parser that parses
RIF and populates the canonical model. From that we have a DRL
"dumper" that generates DRL, enabling the RIF->DRL translation.
Also, if we create a RIF "dumper", one can then generate RIF rules
from the canonical model, enabling DRL->RIF translation. That
assumes that there is a 1-to-1 semantic mapping between RIF and
DRL (I believe there is, but didn't checked).
Do you mean that all of RIF can be expressed in DRL? Then I'd agree.
But you can't express all of DRL in RIF.
-W
A translator RIF-PRD2DRL should be "conformant RIF-PRD consumer" as in the
recommendation
<
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/#Semantics-preserving_tran...
>.
A translator DRL2RIF-PRD should be a "conformant RIF-PRD producer".
For example, a heuristic validation (test-based) may work in a
"round-trip" i.e. take a Drools ruleset R, do R_RIF= DRL2RIF-PRD(R) then
R1= RIF-PRD2DRL(R_RIF) and compare answers by running Drools on R and R1
When Wolfgang said that not all Drools constructs can translate to RIF-PRD
I assume he is thinking to some lets say "nonlogical" or
"procedural"
Drools constructs. However, because RIF can encode any partial recursive
function, DRL2RIF should be always possible i.e. when translating a ruleset
from Drools, one may obtain not only PR rules but, in addition some RIF-BLD
rules too.
Therefore I assume that there is very nice work to do.
-.Adrian Giurca
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
7:58 a.m.
New subject: RIF PRD translation effort to/from Drools & Jess
On 2/10/2011 11:36 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
What about these DRL CEs and CE phrases:
forall
from
from collect
from accumulate with function
from accumulate with init/action/result
Then, some rule attributes
no-loop
agenda-group
salience ( <expression> ) // not a *literal* expression
What about temporal operators and other CEP features?
And I'm not even going to be mean and discuss plugins such as
user-defined evaluators
or user-defined accumulate functions.
As for DRL in XML, one might simply add JAXB annotations to the
classes representing a DRL Package and its constiuents. And then
marshal and schemagen. Piece of cake, theoretically ;-)
-W
That's why I said earlier that DRL2RIF should be possible and it can be
a very nice work. However, I believe the result is not only RIF-PRD,
but maybe a mix between RIF-PRD and RIF-BLD. Checking what Edson said
in an old blog post about "accumulate"
<http://blog.athico.com/2007/06/accumulate-functions-edson-tirelli.html>;, or
in the documentation
<http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.1.1.34858.FINAL/drools-expert/ht...;,
maybe such construct is suitable to a RIF-BLD translation. The rule
Edson exemplified in his post is "Rule: apply 10% discount to orders
that include at least US$ 100,00 of toys.". He chose a nice
implementation using accumulate. Maybe there are other solutions which
does not make use of this construct.
Salience and agenda-group are discussed in the RIF-PRD doc
<http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Groups>;. As for no-loop is any
formal evidence that this is a necessary construct?
-Adrian Giurca
On 10 February 2011 10:21, <pdl(a)agh.edu.pl <mailto:pdl@agh.edu.pl>> wrote:
Adrian, Wolfgang, all,
I've had issues translating the RHS java code for instance (c.f. XSLT
stylesheet).
It would be nice to have the translation protocol to/from RIF provided
with the specification, at least for the main rule engines.
All the best,
Pierre
On 2/10/2011 8:07 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
On 9 February 2011 22:11, Edson Tirelli <ed.tire...(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ed.tire...@gmail.com>
<mailto:ed.tire...@gmail.com <mailto:ed.tire...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Pierre,
Good to see works like yours being done.
Drools has an internal canonical model that we use to round
trip rules between the syntaxes we support. The best way of
supporting "RIF" in Drools is to simply add a parser that
parses
RIF and populates the canonical model. From that we have a DRL
"dumper" that generates DRL, enabling the RIF->DRL translation.
Also, if we create a RIF "dumper", one can then generate
RIF rules
from the canonical model, enabling DRL->RIF translation. That
assumes that there is a 1-to-1 semantic mapping between RIF and
DRL (I believe there is, but didn't checked).
Do you mean that all of RIF can be expressed in DRL? Then I'd
agree.
But you can't express all of DRL in RIF.
-W
A translator RIF-PRD2DRL should be "conformant RIF-PRD consumer"
as in the
recommendation
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/#Semantics-preserving_tran...;.
A translator DRL2RIF-PRD should be a "conformant RIF-PRD producer".
For example, a heuristic validation (test-based) may work in a
"round-trip" i.e. take a Drools ruleset R, do R_RIF=
DRL2RIF-PRD(R) then
R1= RIF-PRD2DRL(R_RIF) and compare answers by running Drools on R
and R1
When Wolfgang said that not all Drools constructs can translate to
RIF-PRD
I assume he is thinking to some lets say "nonlogical" or
"procedural"
Drools constructs. However, because RIF can encode any partial
recursive
function, DRL2RIF should be always possible i.e. when translating
a ruleset
from Drools, one may obtain not only PR rules but, in addition
some RIF-BLD
rules too.
Therefore I assume that there is very nice work to do.
-.Adrian Giurca
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
4822
days inactive
4822
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Adrian Giurca -
pdl＠agh.edu.pl -
Wolfgang Laun