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&gt; 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