Re: [rules-users] RE: rules-users Digest, Vol 29, Issue 45

Paul - Drools does not appear to have done well on those benchmarks, but the paper does not seem to mention which version of Drools was used. Did I miss that? Do you know which version it was?

Tom Murphy Business Process Consultant Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform 800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266 MAC: X2301-01B Office: 515 324 4853 | Mobile: 941 320 8014 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 4:14 PM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 29, Issue 45 Send rules-users mailing list submissions to rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org You can reach the person managing the list at rules-users-owner(a)lists.jboss.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Comparison info with other engines (Paul Fodor) 2. RE: Comparison info with other engines (Ingold, Jonathan) 3. Re: Negation semantics in Drools (Paul Fodor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:25:43 -0400 From: Paul Fodor <paul.i.fodor(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [rules-users] Comparison info with other engines To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <7641b8a40904171325u26d00b89h8ac857ee4d093416(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 2009/4/17 Lindy hagan <lindyhagan(a)gmail.com&gt; > I'm wondering if anybody has comparison info with other engines. I just > started to evaluate the products > not sure which factors to consider. But I have these requirements: > > It has to be a production rule system or any rule system (logic programming, deductive databases, triples rule engines)? Check the benchmarks at: http://rulebench.projects.semwebcentral.org The benchmarks may have features which you might not need, and not all the tested systems are free. Its main goal was to compare technologies, but it might help you decide what system you want. Regards, Paul Fodor > Must Be > 1)Free or inexpensive product. > 2)Rules change frequently, level of effort should be minimum. > 3)Multiple join condition (A rule is determined ranging from 1 to 10 data > fields.) > 4)Should support approximately 75 rules. > > Better if we have. > 1)Change Rules dynamically if possible. > 2)Ease of use for Business users and developers. > 3)Rule versioning. > > Will be happy if any one can send me rule comparison document or suggest me > which tools can i use to evaluate. > > Thanks, > Lindy > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090417/71cb02f... ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:44:03 -0400 From: "Ingold, Jonathan" <jonathan.ingold(a)jackson.com&gt; Subject: RE: [rules-users] Comparison info with other engines To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <CCA474835B7BF64BB1CCE365D614A614064F6C(a)MAILWP10A.jacksonnational.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The Guvnor feature of Drools makes things easier for Business users and is great for version control! | Jonathan Ingold | jonathan.ingold(a)jackson.com | PH: & FAX: 517-367-3827 | Business Rules Developer | Jackson National Life Insurance | http://www.jackson.com <http://www.jackson.com/> | Please note that all Jackson e-mail addresses have changed from @jnli.com to @jackson.com. ________________________________ From: Lindy hagan [mailto:lindyhagan@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:28 PM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Comparison info with other engines I'm wondering if anybody has comparison info with other engines. I just started to evaluate the products not sure which factors to consider. But I have these requirements: Must Be 1)Free or inexpensive product. 2)Rules change frequently, level of effort should be minimum. 3)Multiple join condition (A rule is determined ranging from 1 to 10 data fields.) 4)Should support approximately 75 rules. Better if we have. 1)Change Rules dynamically if possible. 2)Ease of use for Business users and developers. 3)Rule versioning. Will be happy if any one can send me rule comparison document or suggest me which tools can i use to evaluate. Thanks, Lindy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090417/fed0daa... ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:13:43 -0400 From: Paul Fodor <paul.i.fodor(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [rules-users] Negation semantics in Drools To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <7641b8a40904171413t61221150qa067a1429576e321(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Edson, The "insertLogical" doesn't work for non-stratified programs. For instance, in the win-nowin example, if there is a move(1,2) and a move(2,1), the order in which the two facts are inserted determines the final model (please see hte tests below). In logic programming, this example has two stable models: {win(1)} and {win(2)}, or a well-founded model {} (win(1) and win(2) are both undefined). Regards, Paul. * package * tests; * import * tests.Test.Win;* import * tests.Test.Move; * rule * "direct" *when* m : Move(x : first, y : second) *not* Win(first == y) *then* *insertLogical*(*new* Win(m.getFirst()));* end * move 1 2 move 2 1 Test: reading rulefile: win.drl ... reading datafile: win_upper3_drools.drools ... loading cputime: 0.016 loading walltime: 0.016 calculating ... computing cputime: 0.0 computing walltime: 0.0040 Derived facts in memory:move(1, 2). win(2). move(2, 1). 3 move 2 1 move 1 2 Test: reading rulefile: win.drl ... reading datafile: win_upper4_drools.drools ... loading cputime: 0.016 loading walltime: 0.016 calculating ... computing cputime: 0.0 computing walltime: 0.0040 Derived facts in memory:move(2, 1). win(1). move(1, 2). 3 2009/4/17 Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; > I did not had time to analyze what jess is doing, but note that what is > important is the final answer. In your example, with Move(1,2) and Move(2,3), the final answer must be Win(2), right? And that is what Drools will answer, does not matter the order in which the data is entered into the engine. > BUT, *very important*: the following construct in backward chaining: > > win(X):- move(X,Y), not(win(Y)). > > Is better represented in forward chaining using *logicalInsert* > instead of a regular *insert*: > rule "direct" % Drools > > when > m : Move(x : first, y : second) > not Win(first == y) > then > logicalInsert(new Win(m.getFirst())); > end > > Since in your backward chaining rule, only one win() predicate > instantiation will remain true. > So, even with differences in the reasoning algorithm, the answer is > correct. > Please explain further if I am missing anything. > > Edson > > > 2009/4/17 Paul Fodor <paul.i.fodor(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> Hi Edson, Greg, >> I don't think the rule is written wrong. This is how the win-nowin >> program is written in logic programming: X wins if there is a move from X to some Y and Y doesn't win: >> win(X):- move(X,Y), not(win(Y)). >> >> rule "direct" % Drools >> >> when >> m : Move(x : first, y : second) >> not Win(first == y) >> then >> insert(new Win(m.getFirst())); >> end >> >> I think that it's interesting that, in Jess (another production rule >> system), the stratified model is always computed right, no matter what was the order of the facts in the database. If you want to take a look, please see the equivalent program in Jess for win-nowin that I attached. Just run it with: >> jess test.clp >> >> win_upper1_jess.jess >> >> (move (cur 1) (next 2)) >> (move (cur 1) (next 3)) >> (move (cur 2) (next 4)) >> (move (cur 2) (next 5)) >> ... >> >> win_upper2_jess.jess >> >> (move (cur 2) (next 4)) >> (move (cur 2) (next 5)) >> (move (cur 1) (next 2)) >> (move (cur 1) (next 3)) >> ... >> >> test.clp: >> >> (deftemplate move (slot cur) (slot next)) >> (deftemplate win (slot val)) >> >> (defrule find_win >> (move (cur ?cur) (next ?next)) >> (not (win (val ?next))) >> => >> (assert (win (val ?cur))) >> ) >> >> (defquery query-win >> (win (val ?val)) >> ) >> (open "win_result.txt" output a) >> (printout output ./win_upper1_jess.jess crlf) >> (reset) >> (load-facts "./win_upper1_jess.jess") >> (bind ?tmx (call java.lang.management.ManagementFactory getThreadMXBean)) >> (deffunction cputime () (return (* (?tmx getCurrentThreadCpuTime) 1E-9))) >> (bind ?starttime_wall (time)) >> (bind ?starttime_cpu (cputime)) >> (run) >> (bind ?query_result (run-query* query-win)) >> (bind ?count 0) >> (while (?query_result next) >> (++ ?count) >> ) >> (printout output "solutions: " ?count crlf) >> (bind ?endtime_cpu (cputime)) >> (bind ?endtime_wall (time)) >> (bind ?walltime (- ?endtime_wall ?starttime_wall)) >> (bind ?cputime (- ?endtime_cpu ?starttime_cpu)) >> (printout output "computing cputime: " ?cputime crlf) >> (printout output "computing walltime: " ?walltime crlf) >> (close output) >> >> Regards, >> Paul Fodor. >> >> 2009/4/16 Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; >> >>> Ha, thanks a lot Greg. I need new glasses... he is actually comparing >>> with the parameter "second", but when creating the win fact, using the parameter "first". >>> not Win(first == m.second) >>> insert(new Win(m.first)); >>> >>> Yes, in this case the engine is working exactly as it should. >>> >>> Anyway, I added the (fixed) test case to the codebase, just in case. >>> :) >>> Thanks, >>> Edson >>> >>> 2009/4/16 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; >>> >>>> You don't have to worry. The engine is acting as it should. >>>> >>>> The rule Paul had was this, a bit simplified for clarity: >>>> >>>> rule "direct" >>>> when >>>> m : Move() >>>> not Win(first == m.second) >>>> then >>>> insert(new Win(m.first)); >>>> end >>>> >>>> If the insertion order is [Move(1,2), Move(2,3)] then the rule matches >>>> first on Move(2,3) and Win(2) is inserted. No other rule fires because now Move(1,2) and Win(2) match up, removing the instantiation with Move(1,2) from the agenda. >>>> If the insertion order is [Move(2,3), Move(1,2)] then the order is >>>> this: >>>> matched Move(1,2) insert Win(1) >>>> matched Move(2,3) insert Win(2) >>>> >>>> The insertion of Win(1) in the first firing does NOT prevent the >>>> instantiation with Move(2,3) from then firing. >>>> So it's all good. :) Sample code and output attached. >>>> >>>> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; >>>>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Negation semantics in Drools >>>>> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>>>> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 8:50 PM >>>>> It is on the latest snapshot release, >>>>> 5.0.0.20090417.005612-483 >>>>> >>>>> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We need to investigate if that is still happening >>>>>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>> latest trunk. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> JBoss Drools Core Development >>> 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 >> >> > > -- > Edson Tirelli > JBoss Drools Core Development > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090417/8e648ff... ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users End of rules-users Digest, Vol 29, Issue 45 ******************************************* _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users