If I understand what you are doing, you probably have some legacy
data from which to work. If that's the case, don't even look at the
legacy data until you have determined the rule logic. Then decide
what data would be necessary to support that logic. If the data
exist (or if most of it exists) within the legacy system, it
shouldn't be too hard to convince management that you need just a few
extra attributes or tables in the existing database. However, if
there are drastic changes, then perhaps you can pull the legacy data
down to your Unix or (God forbid!) Windows platform and add what you
need at that point. The last solution is usually what happens on
most projects.
On the other hand, Dr. Friedman-Hill is correct in that you can
always add rules (assuming that the data are there to support the
rules) or even add rules and objects later. And this is also what
normally happens on most rulebased projects. Even XCON started with
only a few hundred rules, grew to over 1,000 the first year or so and
then past 10,000 rules within a few years as more and more rule
modules (sets) were added. If you are working on an enterprise
project, probably the best thing is to do a pilot project with a few
hundred rules, a few (less than 50 normally) objects and do an end-to-
end implementation. Be sure to involve the highest level of
management (for approvals and support) and the lowest levels of users
(to be sure that it works correctly and will be widely accepted)
along the way. Then grow gradually, not by leaps and bounds. Bon
Chance!
SDG
jco
James C. Owen
Senior Consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kbsc.com
"Never give up. Never give up. Never, never, never give up."
From a speech by former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, during
the most trying times of the British Empire; a great leader too soon
forgotten by his country after keeping it from being swallowed up by
the Nazi Empire during the second world war.
On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Matthew Hutchinson wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just a conceptual question... since starting with Jess, it always
seemed to me generally you have the rules established first, then
load in facts which in turn trigger these rules. No problems there.
But is it "proper" to consider having the facts already in memory
and *then* adding rules which I know will trigger - basically a
sort of "query on the data" mentality? Is this a bad concept?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthew Hutchinson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Spatial Sciences
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth, Western Australia 6845
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
