Re: [rules-users] Previous mailing list archives

I understand that the jboss rules mailing list migrated to the current server recently. Can somebody tell me where can I find archives from the previous mailing list? -Rahul --- Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; wrote: > > Alexander, > > Seems a really interesting project indeed! > Trying to answer: > > 1. I'm not sure what you mean by "rule hierarchy". > Drools does not > support rule "inheritence" if that is what you mean > by hierarchy... can > you please ellaborate? > > 2. Dynamically adding rules to a rulebase will not > force a full > reevaluation. Only the new rules are evaluated and > if they eventually > have Patterns that may be shared, they are not even > evaluated, as they > already were. > > The problem I think you will face is that Drools > does not support > uncertanty reasoning. You will need to code > uncertanty by hand if you > use drools. I suggest you a POC to check how it > goes. > > []s > Edson > > Alexander Richter wrote: > > > Hello, > > I work in a bioinformatics group and we're > interested in using Drools > > for setting up an assertion engine for biological > processes. > > We have over 300 genomes ( == sets of facts), each > with upwards of > > 10K genes/features with annotations ( == facts). > We want to be able > > to predict whether various biological processes > exist, based on > > presence of the annotated genes that are the > components of the > > process. Asserted processes are not black and > white; we may have > > various levels of certainty, based on the > percentage of component > > genes found (because we can't be certain that not > finding a certain > > annotation means the the gene isn't in the genome > -- it could mean > > that we just didn't find it). In addition, > processes tend to be > > composed of sub-processes. The assertions then get > used to make > > additional annotations on the features, which we > then use to help us > > look for missing components. Therefore, we need to > be able to display > > the decisions that led to a specific assertion, as > well as the > > features that went into the component assertions. > > In addition, we regularly add new processes, as we > get new ways to > > annotate genes, or read about newly worked-out > processes. We really > > don't want to have to run all rules against all > the genomes every > > time we add a new rule, but just add that rule. > > > > We would like to define the actual rules for the > assertions in > > Drools, but don't know how we would do certain > parts. > > 1) Can one walk through the rule hierarchy from a > given rule and > > tease out the hierarchy of rules and the facts > that went into that rule? > > 2) Is it possible to add a rule, or set of > interacting rules, and > > have them incrementally evaluated, instead of > forcing full > > evaluation? Alternatively, can the rulesets be > individually defined > > and run in such a way that they interact? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Richter > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users