Alan, I found your post very interesting and did some digging on the 'net' w/r/t AOP. I will have to do a lot more digging, but the essence of your post seems to deal with laying a deterministic layer of control over a non-deterministic system (rules). Hopefully, I got it right.
I use a technique of goal oriented programming that enables a forward chaining system to process combinations of sequential (possibly ordered), disjunctive, and/or conjunctive goals to accomplish a "control flow architecture" for rules systems not unlike workflow. Ironically, this may resemble "backward chaining" in some ways since the rules process these goals in a bottom up manner. Good post ! I will definitely look into AOP ! Thank You !! Rich Halsey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:27 PM Subject: Aspects and rules (was RE: JESS: Jason Morris interview) > Right on. Good interview - I like the bits about "back to the future" ;-D > > Speaking of the future, I was lurking on aosd-discuss and the discussion: > > http://aosd.net/pipermail/discuss/2003-August/000887.html > > was about event vs. aspect oriented programming and I posted asking about > how those compare to rule based programming. A paper by Filman and Friedman > (no relation?) was quoted as saying: > > Long quote from: > http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/~filman/text/oif/aop-is.pdf > > "Rule-based systems like OPS-5[4] or, to a lesser extent, Prolog are > programming with purely dynamically quantified statements... If we all > programmed with rules, we wouldn't have AOP discussions. We would just talk > about how rules that expressed concerns X, Y, and Z could be added to the > original system, with some mention of the tricks involved in getting those > rules to run in the right order and to communicate with each other. The base > idea that other things could be going on besides the main flow of control > wouldn't be the least bit strange. > > But by and large, people don't program with rule-based systems... They've > destroyed the fundamental sequentially of almost everything. The sequential, > local, unitary style is really very good for expressing most things. The > cleverness of classical AOP is augmenting conventional sequentially with > quantification, rather than supplanting it wholesale." > > R.E. Filman and D.P. Friedman, "Aspect-Oriented Programming is > Quantification and Obliviousness", Workshop on Advanced Separation of > Concerns, OOPSLA 2000, October 2000, Minneapolis. > > As it turns out, it isn't as hard as all that - especially with jess. It > appears that these are complimentary rather than conflicting technologies. > > Aspects help create events or the aforementioned control structures from > which rules can reason. The noisy work of maintaining "computed" value/state > can also be lifted out the rules and data model and sliced in via aspects > leaving a cleaner rule set. Rule oblivious components can be easily > integrated via aspects - today. > > "What are you waiting for?" (tm) > > alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:18 PM > To: Jess Mailing List > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: JESS: Jason Morris interview > > > Hi all, > > Jason Morris has done an interview with me that he's prepping for > publication; you can see an excerpt along with a handsome photograph > of yours truly at http://www.morristechnicalsolutions.com/ . > > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
