David,
You wrote: *Rules ease-of-authoring is a big requirement for us.*
*Procedural *rules systems have been around since the 1990s at least, and
their drawbacks are indeed well known.
It's now feasible to interpret rules in a strongly *declarative *way, such
that the consequences you can draw
Regarding this particular question from my initial message:
> Any thoughts from anyone about what would be involved in modifying
the Jena code base to support this?
It looks like what I'm asking for would be reasonably easy. It looks
like the high-level steps would be:
* Modify the rule r
Hi Niels,
Thanks for the excellent observations/suggestions. Yes, I think you are
right that we could adopt these techniques that leverage what's provided
in the basic RETE algorithm, which are already implemented in Jena.
However, we strongly prefer a more streamlined approach. For one thi
David,
Could you put the priority into the rule and then let the rule completion
trigger the next set of rules?
Another option is to create the rule so that each rule tests to see if there
are any overlapping rules that have a higher priority.
Niels
-Original Message-
From: David Mart
Hi all,
We are working on a system that employs Jena rules, and we're finding it
would be extremely valuable to have a capability for specifying rule
priorities. We are using the forwardRETE
reasoning mode.
What we're thinking of would be the ability of the rules author to
assign a numeric
Hi,
FileModels have been removed - the replacement is to use a TDB database.
TDB is fully transactional when writing to disk. FileModels weren't.
The now-standard way to have multiple models, if that is what you were
using ModelMaker for is to use named graphs within one RDF Dataset.
