Mark (or Edson?) What do you see when you run it under Leaps? Does it match Jess or Reteoo or Leaps has its own version? -Alex
On 4/7/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > I finished today both, the porting of Waltz to jess and the > corrections on our DRL version of the rules. I believe our DRL is now > correct. Was not able to find any problem. > Although, our results are different from jess. In the *simplest* > case (18 lines), I think both our answer is correct and jess' answer is > correct, even being different answers. But, when I tried with larger > data bases, our answer does not seems to be correct as it plots almost > all edges as "Boundary" edges. > > The reason for this is that we trigger rules in a different sequence > from jess. From what I could gather and looking at some classes inside > jess, the criteria it uses for triggering rules is: > > 1. Salience > 2. Recency, where tuple recency it uses is the sum of all facts > recencies inside the tuple > 3. was not able to determine. Seems to be a not deterministic criteria. > > This makes impossible for us to compare performance, as we are > clearly following different execution paths compared to jess. > > What are the next steps on this? Should we implement the second > criteria above? > Unless I'm missing something here, the test is extremelly data > sensitive and seems to be designed to work with the resolution criterias > jess/clips use. > > Thoughts? > Edson > > --- > Edson Tirelli > Auster Solutions do Brasil > @ www.auster.com.br > +55 11 5096-2277 / +55 11 9218-4151 > > > > > >
