Alan, >From what I've been lucky enough to see of the drools 3 stuff, the human readable language used for definition of rules is quite remarkable. Michael and the rest of the team have done some great work in that area. Now the waiting.
Lionel On 3/1/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Drools 3 will address this, definately. Timeframe is very soon for beta 1. > > On 3/1/06, Ho, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've been looking at the Semantic Module Framework, however I found the > > Domain specific languages to be as complicated if not more than the java > > stuff. > > > > Is there a way to express rules in a more "human-readable" format ? > > Something like Subject Verb Object (e.g. drools is good) would work > really > > well for both conditions and consequences. > > > > Regards, > > Alan Ho > > > >
