w.r.t. the statement below, 

[Don't think there's such a thing as "The Refraction Principle;" Jess
has a particular behavior w.r.t. refraction, and other such behaviors
have been proposed.]

Hmmm...  This is something that I had not realized until now.  However,
section 2.8.1.3 of the Jess manual explains that there are two available
conflict resolution strategies, basically LIFO and FIFO.  Refraction,
MEA and/or LEX are not discussed.  Only breadth and depth strategies,
along with salience (sometimes called priority in other systems) are
discussed.

However, most of the AI books at my disposal (and most commercial
inference engines) implement either LEX (Lexical) or MEA (Means Ends
Analysis) conflict resolution strategies.  Most of them, with one
notable exception, use MEA.  If anyone want a listing of those books I
would be happy to provide them.

Both MEA and LEX have as their first item on the conflict resolution
table the refraction principle, in that a rule (where a rule =
logic+data) that has fired is removed from the agenda table and never
returned.  This seems to be a basic principle even in such older systems
as Expert (a backward-chaining system from Neuron Data) as well as the
newer incarnations such as OPSJ, JRules and Blaze Advisor.  I know it
was the first principle for all of the OPS systems from which our
present-day engines seem to have been derived.

So.  My question is this:  Considering that most inference engines do
have refraction as the first item on the conflict resolution, is there a
reason that the conflict resolution in Jess does NOT include refraction
as the first principle?  Or at all?

I would say "all other inference engines" but I'm not intimately
familiar with all of them - but all of the ones with which I do have
experience use refraction as the first item on the conflict resolution
system.

One last thing:  I took the survey indicated without reading the line
below that says (or seems to indicate) that "per slot activation" is the
same thing as "refraction" - Maybe I'm dense (Shut up Richard! You too
Joe!) but I can't see the relationship between "per slot activation" and
refraction as a means of conflict resolution.

SDG
jco

James C. Owen
Senior Knowledgebase Consultant
6314 Kelly Circle
Garland, TX   75044
972.530.2895 
214.684.5272 (cell)


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JESS: Refraction

I think Emmanuel Bonnet wrote:
> Hi,
> It seems that the refraction principle is not implemented yet in Jess.
> I have seen it as a Proposed Feature in the archives
> ( JESS: Proposed feature , 6 Jan 2003).


Don't think there's such a thing as "The Refraction Principle;" Jess
has a particular behavior w.r.t. refraction, and other such behaviors
have been proposed.

> 
> Does anybody knows :
> . if it will be implemented in the near future ?

Take the Jess Development Roadmap survey (see link on home page at
http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess). The feature you're interested in
is called "per-slot activations" in that survey.

> . how I can "simulate" that behavior in the current Jess Version ?
> 

You can't, really.

> Regards,
> Emmanuel
> 




---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill  
Distributed Systems Research        Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs                FAX:   (925) 294-2234
PO Box 969, MS 9012                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Livermore, CA 94550         http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to