I think qfhe wrote: > > (1) The eventing mechanism only allows me to find the > last rule that immediately triggers the next rule. If > there are several rules that lead to the activation of > a rule, I am unable to capture that.
Rules don't trigger rules; facts do. You can keep track of what rule asserted (or last modified) every fact, and this gives you the set of rules that contributed to activating each other rule. I really couldn't follow the whole rest of your discussion because it was based on some invalid assumptions. > When the rule that we're interested in is violated, it is hard to > backward-trace its causes at that time. If you keep track of what rule asserted what fact, then at any time, working backwards, you can generate an execution trace for any rule that fires. > Are both my questions the fundamental limitation of a > forward-chaining engine? No, they mostly seem to be based on some invalid assumptions about how rule engines work. As long as you remember that rules are activated by facts, not by other rules, and that facts are asserted by rules, you should have no problem doing what you want. --------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Friedman-Hill Advanced Software 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
