[rules-dev] RIF PRD translation effort to/from Drools & Jess

[Adrian Giurca]

On 2/10/2011 8:07 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>
>
> On 9 February 2011 22:11, Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ed.tirelli at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>        Pierre,
>
>        Good to see works like yours being done.
>
>        Drools has an internal canonical model that we use to round
>     trip rules between the syntaxes we support. The best way of
>     supporting "RIF" in Drools is to simply add a parser that parses
>     RIF and populates the canonical model. From that we have a DRL
>     "dumper" that generates DRL, enabling the RIF->DRL translation.
>     Also, if we create a RIF "dumper", one can then generate RIF rules
>     from the canonical model, enabling DRL->RIF translation. That
>     assumes that there is a 1-to-1 semantic mapping between RIF and
>     DRL (I believe there is, but didn't checked).
>
>
> Do you mean that all of RIF can be expressed in DRL? Then I'd agree. 
> But you can't express all of DRL in RIF.
> -W
>
A translator  RIF-PRD2DRL should be  "conformant RIF-PRD consumer" as in 
the recommendation 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/#Semantics-preserving_transformations>. 
A translator DRL2RIF-PRD should be a "conformant RIF-PRD producer".

For example, a heuristic validation (test-based) may work in a 
"round-trip" i.e. take a Drools ruleset R, do R_RIF= DRL2RIF-PRD(R)  
then R1= RIF-PRD2DRL(R_RIF) and compare answers by running Drools on R 
and R1


When Wolfgang said that not all Drools constructs can translate to 
RIF-PRD I assume he is thinking to some  lets say "nonlogical" or 
"procedural" Drools constructs.
However, because RIF can encode any partial recursive function,  DRL2RIF 
should be always possible i.e. when translating a ruleset from Drools, 
one may obtain not only PR rules but, in addition some RIF-BLD rules too.
Therefore  I assume that there is  very nice work to do.

-.Adrian Giurca
>
>
>        Edson
>
>     2011/2/9 <pdl at agh.edu.pl <mailto:pdl at agh.edu.pl>>
>
>         Mark, Andrew, Guys,
>
>         Yes working with DRL may be better for Drools indeed. But the
>         only way I
>         see this working is by implementing this directly in the code
>         of Drools.
>         That's not practical for me, hence I "simply" export/import
>         the rules
>         in/from XML. This way I can focus on the translation.
>
>         If someone would give me pointers on an easy way to work with
>         DRL, I'd do
>         that of course.
>
>         I assume you already had discussions on XML (or anything more
>         structured
>         and widely spread than DRL) as working format so I won't be
>         going there :)
>
>         All the best,
>         Pierre
>
>
>         On 09/02/2011 16:46, Mark Proctor wrote:
>         > On 09/02/2011 08:40, pdl at agh.edu.pl <http://agh.edu.pl>
>         wrote:
>         >> Hi all,
>         >>
>         >> I've been working on translators between RIF-PRD, DroolsML
>         and JessML.
>         >> I've put the translators in the form of XSLT stylesheets on the
>         following
>         >> web site along with samples of rules written in the above
>         languages. I
>         >> would greatly appreciate feedback/comments/tips/help on
>         making these
>         >> translators more reliable and accurate.
>         >>
>         >> Web site: yieldrif (dot) appspot (dot) com  (in case emails
>         containing
>         >> URLs are bounced off)
>         >>
>         >> Please note that this is free hosting and has some
>         limitations. Feel
>         free
>         >> to add/comment content on this web site or drop me a line.
>         What would
>         be
>         >> really helpful is a XML Schema for DroolsML and also the
>         rhs to be in
>         XML
>         >> as opposed to drools code.
>         > Is this converting to Drools DRL? or to our deprecate,
>         unmaintained, out
>         > of date and very old XML?
>         Sorry someone just read that sentence back to me, and it
>         probably read
>         very wrong.
>
>         Let me start again. First up great work, it's good to see any
>         interchange work happening, it's not easy stuff. And I can't
>         wait for us
>         to figure out how to get this working directly against our
>         more recent
>         DRL :)
>
>         Mark
>         > Mark
>         >> I look forward to hearing from you,
>         >> Pierre
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> rules-dev mailing list
>         >> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <http://lists.jboss.org>
>         >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>         >>
>         >>
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > rules-dev mailing list
>         > rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <http://lists.jboss.org>
>         > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>         >
>         >
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rules-dev mailing list
>         rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>       Edson Tirelli
>       JBoss Drools Core Development
>       JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://www.jboss.com>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rules-dev mailing list
>     rules-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20110210/3b6f7e89/attachment-0001.html