February 2007 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

RE: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?

by Anstis, Michael (M.)

Hi, Is there any update as to the availability of ruleflow in 3.2 as it's become pivotal to our use of JBoss Rules? Thanks, Mike ________________________________ From: Mark Proctor [mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org] Sent: 23 January 2007 16:50 To: Anstis, Michael (M.) Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? as soon as MVEL is ready we'll do an M1, but the ruleflow part is not exposed to thte drl language yet, that will take a few more weeks. Mark Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: I might have a play around just to see how I get on, but think I'll wait for 3.1 before I get "serious" - can I get the latest (unstable) code (is it CVS or somewhere)? - and I won't be using this private address ongoing (I didn't want to hit the rules list with news of your latest code). ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: 23 January 2007 16:13 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? not sure its that simple as the stack concept is built into the engine. but good luck. Mark Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: Thanks Mark, I think I've got the hang of AgendaGroups!! Presumably if I sub-class DefaultAgenda and override setFocus(AgendaGroup ag) and getNextfocus() I can implement my own flow-like mechanism instead of the standard stack. I'd need to add a way in which to override the DefaultAgenda created in ReteooWorkingMemory's constructor too but this again should be a simple sub-class (together with a subclass of ReteooRulebase with override of newWorkingMemory and a new RuleBaseFactory to allow me to construct these new objects). Anything major I've missed - my experience with rules engines now totals a couple of weeks and it's possible I'm missing the point!! With kind regards, Mike ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: 22 January 2007 16:33 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? Anstis, We don't have ruleflow, but we do have AgendaGroups which can provide a form of rule flow, just that its actually stack based. I'm working on a more general ruleflow idea at the moment, it may make it into the end of Q1 release, but its not defnite yet. Normally you cache the rulebase in a singleton and then just creating working memory instances as and when you need to - creating a working memory is light. The guided gui builder is for 3.2, it's web only based on GWT, I believe that it will also do DSLs (Mic will have to confirm that). Mark Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: Hi, I'm evaluating BRMS's for a new project at work. JBoss Rules today swung into pole position however I am unclear on a number of features. I wonder whether this user-group can help? I list a number of aspects I "think" are currently missing in JBoss Rules together with my thoughts: If anybody can clarify the position, provide alternatives or help push JBoss Rules I'd be pleased to hear! * We require ruleflow (where rules run sequentially; like "identify all machines X" then "calculate prices" - not perhaps a good illustration as this could be written as one rule "calculate all prices using machine XXX"!!!). Ideally "dynamic" ruleflow is required too - where the next rule in a sequence is determined by the outcome of a preceding rule (I have seen dynamic achieved with "trigger" Facts asserted as the RHS of rules however our "Business Users" cannot be expected to author rules following this design pattern. I have also seen static implemented with salience). Is ruleflow (static or dynamic) part of 3.2 - otherwise we'll need to categorise rules having different types fired throughout a "coded" process in Java. * A J2EE runtime to provide scalability of the RETE engine. We need to have the engine being shared across sessions on a web-server. What experiences have others had? Do you simply provide a working memory instance per session (how does this scale horizontally?). I also read that an Application Server runtime would be part of 3.2, is this true? * A rule authoring environment for end-users. I read on Mark Proctor's blogg that this is in development but is it set for inclusion in 3.2 and does it handle DSL too; otherwise we'd have to write out own? With kind regards, Michael Anstis ------------------------------------------- Next Generation Estimating System * Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239 * Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268 702239 * <mailto:manstis1@ford.com <mailto:manstis1@ford.com> > ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

19 years, 1 month

2
2
0 / 0

New to rules engine - help in defining rules

by Jeevan Tambuluri

Hello all, I am looking for a way to define rules for the following problem: class Tree { ... } class Branch { Tree mytree; int branch_length; ... } Let's say I have a fact called Tree and another fact called Branch. Brach identifies which tree it belongs to. Now, I want to write a rule to say that all branches in a tree must be of same length. How do I do this with/without using accumulate or forall? Thanks a lot for any help, J

19 years, 1 month

2
4
0 / 0

Differences in how WorkingMemory is storing the objects: identity and equality

by nicolae oana

Dear all, I read in Drools manual about how Working Memory stores the asserted objects : Identity mode and Equality mode. But I'm not sure I properly understood the differences. In what concerns the Equality mode, the return of a FactHandle is done only when a different type of object is asserted?( a type that not exists yet in HashTable?). In the rest cases nothing is happening ? Best regards, Oana. --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

19 years, 1 month

2
2
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing of inte r connected facts

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, Edson. Thanks A LOT for the explanations - that significantly cleared things up. So, would it be a correct thing to say that DROOLS is a complete equevalent of SQL? How more/less optimized is it in comparison with relational DB implementation (eg, in the example of embedded select statement you gave)? I know it might sound like trying to compare apples & oranges, but providing that I'd have to run - either 400 similar SQL queries with different combination of field constraints - or process 400 rules in the rule engine (the same constrains would apply) how that might compare? Is there any good book on formulating / optimizing rules that you can recommend? Thanks. Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 02 February 2007 17:09 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts Vlad, That's what the engine does... it's like SQL. Imagine you have an "Account" table that has a "number" field. You could write a SQL like: select * from account a where (number % 10) < 5 and number < 9000 and 0 = (select count(*) from account b where b.number = (a.number+1000) ) I'm writing it from my head, so there may be syntax errors... :) but I think you got the idea. You don't say write an algorithm saying: "for each record in account table..." The SQL engine iterates the table for you. The same happens with Rule Engines. In the case of JBoss Rules, instead of tables, you have classes (Account). Instead of columns, you have class attributes (number). If you write a rule like this: rule "missing accounts" when $a : Account( $number : number -> ( $number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) then // $a does not have a matching primary account end You are saying the engine to iterate over all Account instances, and for each of them bind the variable and apply constraints, and when a full match is found, the consequence is executed. []s Edson Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: >Hi, Edson, > >I was going through your rule sniplets and I couldn't understand very well >one thing: > >------------- >when > $a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) > not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) then >------------- > >The 'number' variable refers to the 'fact' in the working memory, correct? >Basically it means I have only one particular number to compare ALL accounts >(from the data sheet) with? > >If so, it's not what I actually need to achieve. I need to compare all >accounts with 'each other', all of them coming from the same data sheet. So, >I guess it has to be an iteration through all the facts, comparing each fact >with every other one. > >Or is the sniplet above does exactly that? Ie, iterating through all the >facts? > >In other words, I'd be initializing working memory ONLY with the facts >below: > > for (Iterator it = accountsFromDataSheet.iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) { > Account account = (Account)it.next(); > workingMemory.assertObject(account); > } > >After which the rules must operate on the facts loaded... > >Thanks. > >Vlad > > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli >Sent: 02 February 2007 11:13 >To: Rules Users List >Subject: Re: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter >connected facts > > Hi Vlad, > > This is a case where you can apply business rules with good results. > In the end, it all depends on how you model your Business Objects, >but lets get some examples: > > > >>1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching >>primary account '(z+1)xxy' >> - [this one is true for the dataset above] >> >> > > My understanding is that you are validating your accounting plan, so >you may have an Account object in your model. So, if you want to report >inconsistencies, you can do something like: > >rule "missing accounts" >when > $a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) > not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) >then > // $a does not have a matching primary account >end > > Please, note that the "formulas" I used above may not be the best way >to do it... they are only a possible representation of what you said. > > > >>2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - >>sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 >> - [this one is also true] >> >> > > Here, it seems you are refering to a set of transactions, so you >might have a set of transaction objects to represent the transaction in >your sample. So, a possible representation would be: > >rule "transaction consistency" >when > Transaction( $id : id ) > $credits: Double( ) > from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == >"credit", $amount : amount ), > init( double balance = 0 ), > action( balance += $amount ), > result( new Double( balance ) ) ); > $debits: Double( ) > from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == >"debit", $amount : amount ), > init( double balance = 0 ), > action( balance -= $amount ), > result( new Double( balance ) ) ); > eval( ! $credits.equals( $debits ) ) >then > // inconsistency for transaction $id >end > > Again, this is not the only way or the best way... it is just an example. > > Also, for the above examples, I used syntax/features of the jbrules >3.1 version. > > Hope it helps. > > []s > Edson > > >Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: > > > >>Ok, approx data set: >> >>Primary Account | Secondary Account | Operation | Amount | Type | Owner >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>0001 | | debit | 100 | A | M >>1001 | | credit | 80 | A | F >>1001 | | credit | 20 | X | F >>0002 | 2002 | debit | 50 | B | M >>2002 | | dedit | 20 | B | M >>1002 | | credit | 70 | C | M >> >>Rules: >> >>1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching >>primary account '(z+1)xxy' >> - [this one is true for the dataset above] >>2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - >>sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 >> - [this one is also true] >>3) OwnerOf (primary_account, matching_primary, secondary_account) must be >> >> >of > > >>the same gender >> - [this one is false - 0001 owner must be 'F'] >> >>.... The kind of the rules above... The dataset is more complex and the >>rules are a bit more involved, but this should give an idea. >> >>Thanks for all suggestions! >> >>Vlad >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >>[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rhoden >>Sent: 01 February 2007 17:49 >>To: 'Rules Users List' >>Subject: RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >>ofinterconnected facts >> >>Can you post a couple of example conditions with a dataset you want to >>check? >> >>-Michael >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >>[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir >>(MOH) >>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:04 PM >>To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>Subject: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >>ofinterconnected facts >> >>Hi, >> >> >> >>I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below. >> >> >> >>The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around >> >> >400 > > >>different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the >>debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the >>correlation between different facts: >> >>- eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be >>equal 0 >> >>- if one account got credited, there should be another account >>(within the same dataset) which was debited >> >>- if there are accounts starting with some letter combination, >>there also should be >> >>- etc >> >> >> >>In other words, each rule describes >> >>- the subset of facts to be analyzed >> >>- the rules to be checked against this subset >> >> >> >>It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction >>Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which >>sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within >> >> >the > > >>same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data >>facts. >> >> >> >>On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not >>sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this >>kind of task be reformulated somehow? >> >> >> >>Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach >>would be greatly appreciated! >> >> >> >>Thanks. >> >> >> >>Vlad >> >>_______________________________________________ >>rules-users mailing list >>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>rules-users mailing list >>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>_______________________________________________ >>rules-users mailing list >>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, Edson, I was going through your rule sniplets and I couldn't understand very well one thing: ------------- when $a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) then ------------- The 'number' variable refers to the 'fact' in the working memory, correct? Basically it means I have only one particular number to compare ALL accounts (from the data sheet) with? If so, it's not what I actually need to achieve. I need to compare all accounts with 'each other', all of them coming from the same data sheet. So, I guess it has to be an iteration through all the facts, comparing each fact with every other one. Or is the sniplet above does exactly that? Ie, iterating through all the facts? In other words, I'd be initializing working memory ONLY with the facts below: for (Iterator it = accountsFromDataSheet.iterator(); it.hasNext(); ) { Account account = (Account)it.next(); workingMemory.assertObject(account); } After which the rules must operate on the facts loaded... Thanks. Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 02 February 2007 11:13 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts Hi Vlad, This is a case where you can apply business rules with good results. In the end, it all depends on how you model your Business Objects, but lets get some examples: > 1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching > primary account '(z+1)xxy' > - [this one is true for the dataset above] My understanding is that you are validating your accounting plan, so you may have an Account object in your model. So, if you want to report inconsistencies, you can do something like: rule "missing accounts" when $a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) then // $a does not have a matching primary account end Please, note that the "formulas" I used above may not be the best way to do it... they are only a possible representation of what you said. > 2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - > sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 > - [this one is also true] Here, it seems you are refering to a set of transactions, so you might have a set of transaction objects to represent the transaction in your sample. So, a possible representation would be: rule "transaction consistency" when Transaction( $id : id ) $credits: Double( ) from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == "credit", $amount : amount ), init( double balance = 0 ), action( balance += $amount ), result( new Double( balance ) ) ); $debits: Double( ) from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == "debit", $amount : amount ), init( double balance = 0 ), action( balance -= $amount ), result( new Double( balance ) ) ); eval( ! $credits.equals( $debits ) ) then // inconsistency for transaction $id end Again, this is not the only way or the best way... it is just an example. Also, for the above examples, I used syntax/features of the jbrules 3.1 version. Hope it helps. []s Edson Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: >Ok, approx data set: > >Primary Account | Secondary Account | Operation | Amount | Type | Owner >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >0001 | | debit | 100 | A | M >1001 | | credit | 80 | A | F >1001 | | credit | 20 | X | F >0002 | 2002 | debit | 50 | B | M >2002 | | dedit | 20 | B | M >1002 | | credit | 70 | C | M > >Rules: > >1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching >primary account '(z+1)xxy' > - [this one is true for the dataset above] >2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - >sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 > - [this one is also true] >3) OwnerOf (primary_account, matching_primary, secondary_account) must be of >the same gender > - [this one is false - 0001 owner must be 'F'] > >.... The kind of the rules above... The dataset is more complex and the >rules are a bit more involved, but this should give an idea. > >Thanks for all suggestions! > >Vlad > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rhoden >Sent: 01 February 2007 17:49 >To: 'Rules Users List' >Subject: RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >ofinterconnected facts > >Can you post a couple of example conditions with a dataset you want to >check? > >-Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir >(MOH) >Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:04 PM >To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >Subject: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >ofinterconnected facts > >Hi, > > > >I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below. > > > >The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around 400 >different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the >debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the >correlation between different facts: > >- eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be >equal 0 > >- if one account got credited, there should be another account >(within the same dataset) which was debited > >- if there are accounts starting with some letter combination, >there also should be > >- etc > > > >In other words, each rule describes > >- the subset of facts to be analyzed > >- the rules to be checked against this subset > > > >It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction >Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which >sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within the >same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data >facts. > > > >On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not >sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this >kind of task be reformulated somehow? > > > >Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach >would be greatly appreciated! > > > >Thanks. > > > >Vlad > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Thanks for the tip, Edson. Looks promising. Can you give some more details on the following: - JBRules 3.1 is the DROOLS 3.1 (which is currently under dev-t), correct? - Is there a way to achieve the same functionality using existing release (unless DROOLS 3.1 would be released within next month or so)? - The '$' prefixed variables have some special meaning, correct? What section of the manual can I find more details on what it means? (is it part of Drools 3.0 or 3.1 only?) - Performance-wise, would DROOLS (or any other RETE based engine) give any substantial benefit vs plain 'line-by-line' processing of the rules (eg, implemented in SQL, providing facts are loaded from the DB)? Ie, putting aside 'configurability' aspect. And providing there are around 400 'templated' rules, each having ~15 fields/conditions to be analyzed? I can understand how DROOLS can optimize 'static' network (when facts are evaluated against static conditions), but not sure if the same would be valid when facts are evaluated against each other. Thanks. Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 02 February 2007 11:13 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts Hi Vlad, This is a case where you can apply business rules with good results. In the end, it all depends on how you model your Business Objects, but lets get some examples: > 1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching > primary account '(z+1)xxy' > - [this one is true for the dataset above] My understanding is that you are validating your accounting plan, so you may have an Account object in your model. So, if you want to report inconsistencies, you can do something like: rule "missing accounts" when $a : Account( $number : number -> ( number % 10 < 5 ), number < 9000 ) not Account( number == ( $number + 1000 ) ) then // $a does not have a matching primary account end Please, note that the "formulas" I used above may not be the best way to do it... they are only a possible representation of what you said. > 2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - > sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 > - [this one is also true] Here, it seems you are refering to a set of transactions, so you might have a set of transaction objects to represent the transaction in your sample. So, a possible representation would be: rule "transaction consistency" when Transaction( $id : id ) $credits: Double( ) from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == "credit", $amount : amount ), init( double balance = 0 ), action( balance += $amount ), result( new Double( balance ) ) ); $debits: Double( ) from accumulate( TransactionEntry( id == $id, operation == "debit", $amount : amount ), init( double balance = 0 ), action( balance -= $amount ), result( new Double( balance ) ) ); eval( ! $credits.equals( $debits ) ) then // inconsistency for transaction $id end Again, this is not the only way or the best way... it is just an example. Also, for the above examples, I used syntax/features of the jbrules 3.1 version. Hope it helps. []s Edson Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: >Ok, approx data set: > >Primary Account | Secondary Account | Operation | Amount | Type | Owner >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >0001 | | debit | 100 | A | M >1001 | | credit | 80 | A | F >1001 | | credit | 20 | X | F >0002 | 2002 | debit | 50 | B | M >2002 | | dedit | 20 | B | M >1002 | | credit | 70 | C | M > >Rules: > >1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching >primary account '(z+1)xxy' > - [this one is true for the dataset above] >2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - >sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 > - [this one is also true] >3) OwnerOf (primary_account, matching_primary, secondary_account) must be of >the same gender > - [this one is false - 0001 owner must be 'F'] > >.... The kind of the rules above... The dataset is more complex and the >rules are a bit more involved, but this should give an idea. > >Thanks for all suggestions! > >Vlad > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rhoden >Sent: 01 February 2007 17:49 >To: 'Rules Users List' >Subject: RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >ofinterconnected facts > >Can you post a couple of example conditions with a dataset you want to >check? > >-Michael > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir >(MOH) >Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:04 PM >To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >Subject: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing >ofinterconnected facts > >Hi, > > > >I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below. > > > >The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around 400 >different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the >debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the >correlation between different facts: > >- eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be >equal 0 > >- if one account got credited, there should be another account >(within the same dataset) which was debited > >- if there are accounts starting with some letter combination, >there also should be > >- etc > > > >In other words, each rule describes > >- the subset of facts to be analyzed > >- the rules to be checked against this subset > > > >It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction >Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which >sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within the >same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data >facts. > > > >On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not >sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this >kind of task be reformulated somehow? > > > >Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach >would be greatly appreciated! > > > >Thanks. > > > >Vlad > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinter connected facts

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Ok, approx data set: Primary Account | Secondary Account | Operation | Amount | Type | Owner ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0001 | | debit | 100 | A | M 1001 | | credit | 80 | A | F 1001 | | credit | 20 | X | F 0002 | 2002 | debit | 50 | B | M 2002 | | dedit | 20 | B | M 1002 | | credit | 70 | C | M Rules: 1) for all primary accounts 'zxxy' where y < 5, there should be a matching primary account '(z+1)xxy' - [this one is true for the dataset above] 2) sumOfDebit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) - sumOfCredit(primary + matching_primary + secondary_account) must be = 0 - [this one is also true] 3) OwnerOf (primary_account, matching_primary, secondary_account) must be of the same gender - [this one is false - 0001 owner must be 'F'] .... The kind of the rules above... The dataset is more complex and the rules are a bit more involved, but this should give an idea. Thanks for all suggestions! Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rhoden Sent: 01 February 2007 17:49 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinterconnected facts Can you post a couple of example conditions with a dataset you want to check? -Michael -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:04 PM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] advice is needed: rule based processing ofinterconnected facts Hi, I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below. The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around 400 different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the correlation between different facts: - eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be equal 0 - if one account got credited, there should be another account (within the same dataset) which was debited - if there are accounts starting with some letter combination, there also should be - etc In other words, each rule describes - the subset of facts to be analyzed - the rules to be checked against this subset It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within the same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data facts. On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this kind of task be reformulated somehow? Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Vlad _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

drl syntax

by manoj pardeshi

What is the exact difference between drl and dsl ? I am also confused by the syntax of drl rule file. Please give me link where the syntax for writing drl file is explained. Thanks, Manoj ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

advice is needed: rule based processing of interconnected facts

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, I need some pointer as to where to start with the problem below. The system should be able to validate the balancing data based on around 400 different rules. To simplify the task, the data facts are essentially the debit/credit transactions on different accounts. The rules describe the correlation between different facts: - eg, all debit transactions minus all credit transaction must be equal 0 - if one account got credited, there should be another account (within the same dataset) which was debited - if there are accounts starting with some letter combination, there also should be - etc In other words, each rule describes - the subset of facts to be analyzed - the rules to be checked against this subset It seems basically like each fact is a set of Account Number, Transaction Type, Transaction Amount information, Secondary Account Number (which sometimes needs to be validated against some other account number within the same data set). But I couldn't find a way to relate between multiple data facts. On one hand rule engine seems to be a good solution in here, but I'm not sure how to deal with 'dynamic selection' of the subset of facts. Can this kind of task be reformulated somehow? Any pointers into the DROOLS documentation or hints on a general approach would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Vlad

19 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

What if Rules change frequently...

by jdepaul

Would like to use Drools to evaluate Events that come to us from various systems. The business requirements dictate that the rule definitions change frequently (at least once every hour), so we need the ability to 'refresh' rule definition periodically. How would you design a component that can Assert facts against the the 'current' set of rules as they exist, yet be able to refresh the rule definitions when they change? James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-if-Rules-change-frequently...-tf3149726.html#a... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

19 years, 1 month

3
5
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

rules-users February 2007