-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Michael,
I just realised that my rule would possibly require second-order calculus, maybe I'm stuck anyway and will have to change my data structures... generally drools is very towards my taste ;-) thanks Andy Michael Neale wrote: > right... well I think you will like the new constructs in the next > release (milestone coming out soon) but as for now, I am not sure how > best to do it for you. > > On 10/27/06, * Andreas Langegger* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > hello, > > sure. But the problem is, I need a rule which fires exactly once for any > existance of a > > $r : Relation() > > ...where additional constraints are true, namely: > > forall $a : Attribute( relation == $r ) ( > forall InclusionDependency ( r1 == $r, a1 == $a ) > ) > > "for all attributes a with a.relation == $r, all inclusion dependencies > i for $r must have i.a1 == $a" > > sure I can use De Morgan, but only for the inner forall: > not InclusionDependency (r1 == $r, a1 != $a) > > the outer requires an attribute assigment which is not possible with > drools. > > Will I have to change to Jess or are there any solutions? > > thank you very much, > Andy > > > > Michael Neale wrote: >> you should be able to use bound variables inside an exist - but in > that >> case a single "not" should be fine. >> You just can use other CEs inside an exist/not (or/and and nesting > etc). > >> On 10/25/06, *dorgon* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> the docs say: the not yet implemented "Existential quantifiers > [...] is >> supported with 'not' and 'exists' conditional elements." > >> Hence, I tried to formulate a rule like that: > >> when >> $r : Relation() >> $a : Attribute( relation == $r ) >> not ( exists ( InclusionDependency ( r1 == $r, a1 != > $a ) ) ) >> then ... > >> this is equiv to "forall ( InclusionDependency ( r1 == $r, a1 > == $a >> ) )" > >> However, Drools doesn't allow to use BOUND VAR CONSTRAINTS > together with >> EXISTS, right? Can anybody help me out? > >> Thank you very much, >> Andy > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list please visit: > >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Andreas Langegger > Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing > Johannes Kepler University Linz > A-4040 Linz, Altenberger Straße 69 >> http://www.faw.at >> http://www.langegger.at <http://www.langegger.at> - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Andreas Langegger Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing Johannes Kepler University Linz A-4040 Linz, Altenberger Straße 69 > http://www.faw.at > http://www.langegger.at -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFReCbKk9SuaNc5+IRAqGNAJ4/U1S15nWQW4vJf96mWNucYtZhsQCgjYBe 1oSkkzlLwoxa6+A3AzIclPg= =54Eb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
