it seems odd - I want to use POSITIVE but I am using it to reduce the soft constraints broken?

when $softTotal : Number() from accumulate( IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $weight : weight), sum($weight) // Vote for http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 ); $positiveTotal: Number() from accumulate( IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == ConstraintType.POSITIVE, $weight : weight), sum($weight) // Vote for http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 );

So, basically what you're saying is, "The impact of a given negative soft constraint is reduced by the occurrence of another positive constraint." If that's the case, the rule makes sense to me: total up the occurrences of the negative constraint, total up the occurrences of the positive constraint, and then combine them in a way that describes their relationship. In this case, what the positive constraint "favors" is the reduction or elimination of the negative constraint, so subtracting the positive constraint makes sense. (A classic "interference pattern" situation.) --- On Thu, 1/7/10, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > From: Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; > Subject: [rules-users] Planner/solver - POSITIVE scoring... > To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Geoffrey" <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com&gt; > Date: Thursday, January 7, 2010, 12:23 AM > Hi All - FYI I have been conversing > with Geoffrey on basic > solver/planner usage questions, but we are bring the > discussion here > in case others can benefit. > > So I am looking at using IntConstraintOccurrence, for > scoring with > weights, and HardAndSoftConstraintScoreCalculator. So I can > see how > NEGATIVE_HARD and NEGATIVE_SOFT scores would work, with > appropriate > accumulator rules doing that etc. > > What I am not sure about is ConstraintType.POSITIVE - so I > want to use > that to "favour" certain aspects of a solution. So would > the correct > way to use that to be to have rules that use a positive > IntConstrainOccurrence, and then do something like: > > when > $softTotal : Number() from > accumulate( > > IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == > ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $weight : weight), > sum($weight) // > Vote for > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 > ); > $positiveTotal: Number() > from accumulate( > > IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == > ConstraintType.POSITIVE, $weight : weight), > sum($weight) // > Vote for > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 > ); > > then > > scoreCalculator.setSoftConstraintsBroken($softTotal.intValue() > - $positiveTotal.intValue()); > > > > ?? it seems odd - I want to use POSITIVE but I am using it > to reduce > the soft constraints broken? The the higher the positive > score, the > less softConstraintsBroken property of the score calculator > is set - > that seems odd... or should I not use HardAndSoft if I am > using > POSITIVE and NEGATIVE scoring? > > > -- > Michael D Neale > home: www.michaelneale.net > blog: michaelneale.blogspot.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

-----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Neale Sent: 08 January 2010 01:21 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Planner/solver - POSITIVE scoring... yeah that is it. BTW - is it ok to chat about planner here - is there enough interest to create a separate list for it if needed? (or is traffic low enough people aren't troubled?). On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > So, basically what you're saying is, "The impact of a given negative soft constraint is reduced by the occurrence of another positive constraint." > > If that's the case, the rule makes sense to me: total up the occurrences of the negative constraint, total up the occurrences of the positive constraint, and then combine them in a way that describes their relationship. > > In this case, what the positive constraint "favors" is the reduction or elimination of the negative constraint, so subtracting the positive constraint makes sense. (A classic "interference pattern" situation.) > > --- On Thu, 1/7/10, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> From: Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; >> Subject: [rules-users] Planner/solver - POSITIVE scoring... >> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Geoffrey" <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com&gt; >> Date: Thursday, January 7, 2010, 12:23 AM >> Hi All - FYI I have been conversing >> with Geoffrey on basic >> solver/planner usage questions, but we are bring the >> discussion here >> in case others can benefit. >> >> So I am looking at using IntConstraintOccurrence, for >> scoring with >> weights, and HardAndSoftConstraintScoreCalculator. So I can >> see how >> NEGATIVE_HARD and NEGATIVE_SOFT scores would work, with >> appropriate >> accumulator rules doing that etc. >> >> What I am not sure about is ConstraintType.POSITIVE - so I >> want to use >> that to "favour" certain aspects of a solution. So would >> the correct >> way to use that to be to have rules that use a positive >> IntConstrainOccurrence, and then do something like: >> >> when >> $softTotal : Number() from >> accumulate( >> >> IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == >> ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $weight : weight), >> sum($weight) // >> Vote for >> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 >> ); >> $positiveTotal: Number() >> from accumulate( >> >> IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == >> ConstraintType.POSITIVE, $weight : weight), >> sum($weight) // >> Vote for >> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 >> ); >> >> then >> >> scoreCalculator.setSoftConstraintsBroken($softTotal.intValue() >> - $positiveTotal.intValue()); >> >> >> >> ?? it seems odd - I want to use POSITIVE but I am using it >> to reduce >> the soft constraints broken? The the higher the positive >> score, the >> less softConstraintsBroken property of the score calculator >> is set - >> that seems odd... or should I not use HardAndSoft if I am >> using >> POSITIVE and NEGATIVE scoring? >> >> >> -- >> Michael D Neale >> home: www.michaelneale.net >> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.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 > -- Michael D Neale home: www.michaelneale.net blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

I am thinking the same thing. Flow and guvnor questions also come through this list. I 'll ask in the planner manual to put [planner] in front of your subject :) PS: I 'll also make a twitter hash tag: #drools-planner By the way, Micheal did you see my reply on this thread too, about the global Score refactor? With kind regards, Geoffrey De Smet Swindells, Thomas schreef: > I'd vote to keep it on here, the traffic isn't that high and people like me can learn about what other features exist. Plus it makes searching for answers so much easier. > > Thomas > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- >> bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Neale >> Sent: 08 January 2010 01:21 >> To: Rules Users List >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Planner/solver - POSITIVE scoring... >> >> yeah that is it. >> >> BTW - is it ok to chat about planner here - is there enough interest >> to create a separate list for it if needed? (or is traffic low enough >> people aren't troubled?). >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: >>> So, basically what you're saying is, "The impact of a given negative soft >> constraint is reduced by the occurrence of another positive constraint." >>> If that's the case, the rule makes sense to me: total up the occurrences of >> the negative constraint, total up the occurrences of the positive constraint, >> and then combine them in a way that describes their relationship. >>> In this case, what the positive constraint "favors" is the reduction or >> elimination of the negative constraint, so subtracting the positive constraint >> makes sense. (A classic "interference pattern" situation.) >>> --- On Thu, 1/7/10, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> From: Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> Subject: [rules-users] Planner/solver - POSITIVE scoring... >>>> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Geoffrey" >> <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> Date: Thursday, January 7, 2010, 12:23 AM >>>> Hi All - FYI I have been conversing >>>> with Geoffrey on basic >>>> solver/planner usage questions, but we are bring the >>>> discussion here >>>> in case others can benefit. >>>> >>>> So I am looking at using IntConstraintOccurrence, for >>>> scoring with >>>> weights, and HardAndSoftConstraintScoreCalculator. So I can >>>> see how >>>> NEGATIVE_HARD and NEGATIVE_SOFT scores would work, with >>>> appropriate >>>> accumulator rules doing that etc. >>>> >>>> What I am not sure about is ConstraintType.POSITIVE - so I >>>> want to use >>>> that to "favour" certain aspects of a solution. So would >>>> the correct >>>> way to use that to be to have rules that use a positive >>>> IntConstrainOccurrence, and then do something like: >>>> >>>> when >>>> $softTotal : Number() from >>>> accumulate( >>>> >>>> IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == >>>> ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $weight : weight), >>>> sum($weight) // >>>> Vote for >>>> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 >>>> ); >>>> $positiveTotal: Number() >>>> from accumulate( >>>> >>>> IntConstraintOccurrence(constraintType == >>>> ConstraintType.POSITIVE, $weight : weight), >>>> sum($weight) // >>>> Vote for >>>> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1075 >>>> ); >>>> >>>> then >>>> >>>> scoreCalculator.setSoftConstraintsBroken($softTotal.intValue() >>>> - $positiveTotal.intValue()); >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?? it seems odd - I want to use POSITIVE but I am using it >>>> to reduce >>>> the soft constraints broken? The the higher the positive >>>> score, the >>>> less softConstraintsBroken property of the score calculator >>>> is set - >>>> that seems odd... or should I not use HardAndSoft if I am >>>> using >>>> POSITIVE and NEGATIVE scoring? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael D Neale >>>> home: www.michaelneale.net >>>> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.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 >>> >> >> -- >> Michael D Neale >> home: www.michaelneale.net >> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > ************************************************************************************** > This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. > > NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00 > ************************************************************************************** > > This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. > To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. > > An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.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