I thought clips did do disjunction normal form? in that all ‘or’s are
removed from the body of the tree and moved to the root, thus rewriting the logic into
separate rules? This docs shows an ‘or’ rule is the equivalent of disjunction normal
form:
http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~sylee/courses/clips/bpg/node5.4.3.html
We do soothing similar to above, and a few other things. This class applies all our logic
transformations, you may add others:
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/blob/master/drools-core/src/main/jav...
Mark
On 2 Jun 2014, at 14:37, Mercier Jonathan <jmercier(a)genoscope.cns.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We use Drools at this time to explore some possibilities. We have an old
> system, clips based and with clips rules need to be wrote to a
> disjunctive normal form because they are no internal processing to
> transform user rule to a disjunctive normal form.
> As Drools generate a graph (Phreak) i would like to know if this graph
> try to represent rules as a disjunctive normal form ?
> if not i would like to know if we should to use disjunctive normal form
> to write rules ?
>
> It seem disjunctive normal form could allow to do some concurrent
> computation, i would like to know if drools will use this feature?
>
> thanks
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Thanks Mark simple and clear :-)
Did you you have somewhere a roadmap ?
to know:
- when nearly 6.0.2 will come
- when concurrent approach wil be add
Thanks