[rules-users] [rules-dev] Technical Rules

[Wolfgang Laun]

2010/9/14 Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org>

>
>  Exactly, we don't want to mature and promote a proprietary XML and waste
> the time and create the confusion from not following a standard.
>
>
Any XML standard for rules and especially production system rules is way
behind what systems like Drools, Jess and others are providing. True, a
common subset comprising patterns, constraints and FOL quantifiers is there,
but other features that enhance the expressive power of a Rule Language are
missing or digressing.

As for the "common subset", I'm not at all convinced that there is general
agreement of how to deal with the akward CE "or" with its restrictions and
pitfalls.

Also, there is the issue of data types...

>From a Rule Vendor's point of view, there might be some commercial incentive
to implement an import from some standard rule XML, but not so much for an
export. And if you don't have an export from RBS x, why would you need an
import for RBS Y? But possibly I'm missing the obvious ;-)

Cheers
Wolfgang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20100915/79408bf3/attachment.html