What about these DRL CEs and CE phrases: forall from from collect from accumulate with function from accumulate with init/action/result
Then, some rule attributes no-loop agenda-group salience ( <expression> ) // not a *literal* expression What about temporal operators and other CEP features? And I'm not even going to be mean and discuss plugins such as user-defined evaluators or user-defined accumulate functions. As for DRL in XML, one might simply add JAXB annotations to the classes representing a DRL Package and its constiuents. And then marshal and schemagen. Piece of cake, theoretically ;-) -W On 10 February 2011 10:21, <[email protected]> wrote: > Adrian, Wolfgang, all, > > I've had issues translating the RHS java code for instance (c.f. XSLT > stylesheet). > > It would be nice to have the translation protocol to/from RIF provided > with the specification, at least for the main rule engines. > > All the best, > Pierre > > On 2/10/2011 8:07 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > > > On 9 February 2011 22:11, Edson Tirelli <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Pierre, > > Good to see works like yours being done. > > Drools has an internal canonical model that we use to round > trip rules between the syntaxes we support. The best way of > supporting "RIF" in Drools is to simply add a parser that parses > RIF and populates the canonical model. From that we have a DRL > "dumper" that generates DRL, enabling the RIF->DRL translation. > Also, if we create a RIF "dumper", one can then generate RIF rules > from the canonical model, enabling DRL->RIF translation. That > assumes that there is a 1-to-1 semantic mapping between RIF and > DRL (I believe there is, but didn't checked). > > > > Do you mean that all of RIF can be expressed in DRL? Then I'd agree. > But you can't express all of DRL in RIF. > > -W > > > A translator RIF-PRD2DRL should be "conformant RIF-PRD consumer" as in the > recommendation > < > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/#Semantics-preserving_transformations > >. > A translator DRL2RIF-PRD should be a "conformant RIF-PRD producer". > > For example, a heuristic validation (test-based) may work in a > "round-trip" i.e. take a Drools ruleset R, do R_RIF= DRL2RIF-PRD(R) then > R1= RIF-PRD2DRL(R_RIF) and compare answers by running Drools on R and R1 > > > When Wolfgang said that not all Drools constructs can translate to RIF-PRD > I assume he is thinking to some lets say "nonlogical" or "procedural" > Drools constructs. However, because RIF can encode any partial recursive > function, DRL2RIF should be always possible i.e. when translating a ruleset > from Drools, one may obtain not only PR rules but, in addition some RIF-BLD > rules too. > > Therefore I assume that there is very nice work to do. > > -.Adrian Giurca > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
