It's "Rete", not "Reto". Being Rete-based is reportedly disappearing with 6.x. I'm not sure what sort of criterion the "graphical representation" of rules should represent. There is a way for displaying the Rete network resulting from a rule, but it's not something over which a user like a "business analyst" would get all excited. Some backward chaining functionality is indeed available, although it cannot be compared with what you have in, say, Prolog.

-W On 8 July 2013 08:33, Fatma Zaheer <fmaqsoom(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Dear Rules users, Can anyone of you verify the information in the table mentioned below on JBoss Drools ( business rules management systems)? Thanks in advance, Evaluation Criteria JBoss Drools Software Platform Java Facilitate for rules testing Yes Level of language of rules High Type of target organization All Coding of rules required Yes Business analysts control business logic Yes Rules based web application Yes On Cloud n.a. Forward/Backward chaining Forward chaining Uses Reto-base or constraint base rules engine Reto-Base Graphical representation of rules Yes _______________________________________________ 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

On 08/07/2013, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > > On 8 Jul 2013, at 08:03, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> Some backward chaining functionality is indeed available, although it >> cannot be compared with what you have in, say, Prolog. > that might be an undersell. We do full derivation tree's, as per prolog. But > we take this a step further, and have fully reactive derivation trees - > which most prolog systems does not have. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjIRVSRFvA > > The prolog features we do not have are: > cut > List unification. > Unbound properties for fact instances. So that it unifies against the > property. > Expressions for arguments in unifications. > What about arithmetic? Is this what you mean with the last item, e.g. fact(0,1). fact(N,R):- fact(N1,R1),N is N1+1,R is R1*N.

It's OK to expect a hybrid system to have facets not present in one or the other "pure" system. There's a considerable number of exercises you can do in Prolog, but can't do in Drools - and the other way round, to be sure! _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users