[rules-dev] Trying to develop RuleML (LegalRuleML) XML language for Drools

[Michael Anstis]

BRL was only ever really an XStream dump of the object model used by the
UI. IMO it would be over-selling it to suggest it was ever a generic XML
rule language.

BRL was dropped in 6.x as rules are by and large stored as DRL and we
rehydrate the UI object model from that when editing in the UI (there are a
couple of cases where we continue to store guided decision tables and
guided rule templates as an XStream dump of their respective UI object
models but they too will die).

Mark Proctor may be able to elaborate on the future of Drools and an XML
language. He is however travelling at the moment and may be delayed
replying.

Sent on the move
On 5 Mar 2014 21:20, "Tom Rhodes" <tom.rhodes at gmx.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I am trying to leverage/integrate the XML knowledge bases and rules with
> more mainstream programming tools and environments, like Drools. And
> therefore it would be nice to know the state-of-the-art of XML rule
> language in Drools.
>
> As far as I understand, that up to the version 5.3 Drools supported 2
> external languages (XML and DRL) that were mapped to the internal language,
> then the support for XML was dropped. Here is nice discussion about
> possible XML rule language and Drools:
>
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Enhancements-to-Rule-XML-BRL-td1082068.html
>
> I have several question regarding XML rule language:
>
> 1) what is the development status of it, specifically - does Drools really
> support standart RuleML? Here
> http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/RuleML_Implementations Drools is cited
> as the implementaton of RuleML but is is really so? At least Drools
> documentation does not say so. There is third-party translation tool
> available
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/LOGICABYSS/RuleML2DroolsTranslator but
> is this sufficient for using RuleML with Drools?
>
> 2) Are there any suggestions or ideas for the implementation of RuleML
> translation to Drools internal language? Maybe it can be done in a
> straigtforward manner, but I feel that there should be some more formal
> solution. I.e. XML rule languages have formal syntax and apparently Drools
> internal language has formal syntax as well. If we could endow those
> languages with the formal semantics as well then the translation could be
> done in meta-level. I.e., maybe there are tools that can help to specify
> formal operational semantics for the formally given programming languages
> and then provide support for the translation in at this - more general
> level?
>
> I would be glad to hear any suggestions or ideas about this.
>
> Thanks!
> Tom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140305/89df1f7c/attachment.html