I could be mistaken, but if you use http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.drools.user then it will include the old stuff as well, the gmane people kindly migrated the old data to the new list.

On 3/1/07, Rahul Phadnis <rahul.phadnis@fatspaniel.com> wrote:
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@post.com> 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@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@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users