A "bid" deftemplate could be inherited. Each "expert" could create a
specialized bid to work on a problem that the expert is qualified to handle (at
a higher salience). Each expert could maintain a count of problems handled. A
rule could select (at a lower salience) the bid from the expert with the lowest
count on unaddressed problems.
(defrule an-expert-bids-on-problem
"An example expert bids on problem"
(declare (salience +1))
(problem (id ?problem-id) (addressed FALSE))
... ; determine if problem is applicable
=>
(assert (bid-child (problem ?problem-id) (expert "my-expert-id")
... ; other relevant information
)))
(defrule an-expert-accepts-problem
"The example expert starts addressing a problem"
(declare (salience -1))
?bid <- (bid-child (problem ?problem-id) (expert "my-expert-id")
... ; other relevant information
)
?problem <- (problem (id ?problem-id) (addressed FALSE))
?expert <- (expert (id "my-expert-id") (problem-count ?problem-count))
(not (and (bid (problem ?problem-id)
(expert ?other-expert-id&~"my-expert-id"))
(expert (id ?other-expert-id)
(problem-count ?other-count
&:(< ?other-count ?problem-count)))))
=>
(modify ?expert (problem-count (+ ?problem-count 1)))
(modify ?problem (addressed TRUE))
... ; Start addressing the problem
(bind ?results (run-query* bid-query ?problem-id))
(while (?results next)
(retract (?results get bid)))
(?results close))
Bob Kirby
At 05:31 AM 8/26/2007, Noël Huebers wrote:
>Dear Jessers,
>
>I am developing a kind of an expert system. If a user has a problem, a problem
>fact is asserted. Now I'm looking at a rule to find an expert for my problem.
>In my implementation it is possible that several experts (facts) can match for
>the asserted problem.
>
>Right now, the user with the problem receives multiple expert proposal. But I
>want the user to get only one by time. Therefore, the rule should only fire
>once. I tried to modify the rule with 'exists'-test. Unfortunatly, I use some
>slots of the expert fact ( e.g. name) on the RHS of the rule. Jess throws an
>exception that the bound variable of the expert fact is unknown. I read
>something according to this on the Jess book. Is there another way of
>achieving this?
>
>Another solution would be to retract the problem fact after the rule found the
>first expert. But later on, I want to implement a confirmation that the
>contact was established. If the expert is not available the problem fact
>should remain in the working memory.
>
>Another question is, after this problem is solved: Is it possible to randomize
>the matching expert fact? I don't want the first expert in the memory to get
>all of the help calls.
>
>Thanks for your suggestions!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Noel Huebers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
