-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ernest Friedman-Hill
> Personally, if I was writing code to generate rules, I'd be doing it > in JessML (Jess's new XML format). Rules can be translated easily > between the two representations, and it's much easier to generate XML > programmatically. Hi Ernest, I am currently working on an application that constructs Jess rules programmatically, but I am using the Java API in Jess to build the rules. It was a bit tricky to get started, but I've got it mostly sorted out now. The rules are quite complex, including multiple patterns and compound test expressions. I looked at the JessML, but thought that the Java API would be better because I can construct the rules "logically" in a non-sequential way; i.e. I create several patterns and then add action functions and pattern tests and as I go along. This would be difficult if I was just emitting XML sequentially. Have you considered creating a rule metamodel based on Eclipse EMF? It would be easy to bootstrap from the JessML schema (if that is a reasonable metamodel structure), and the resulting Java-based EMF model would even read/write the JessML xml syntax. A customized class could be written that would read/write the native Jess syntax to the EMF model. Related to the recent thread on OWL, I am also working with the EMF-based metamodel for OWL that reads/writes OWL or RDF ontologies, although this metamodel is based on the OMG's ODM spec. See: http://www.eclipse.org/emft/projects/eodm/#eodm Regards, Dave Carlson -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
