[Reaction-tg] New Member Introduction...

[Said Tabet (RuleML)]

Hi everyone,

David, welcome to the group!

Asaf and Harold mentioned last week a book by David Luckham from
Stanford on events processing. I read some parts already and it looks
very relevant to the work we are doing. For those of you who don't have
it, the book title is:

The Power of Events: An introduction to Complex Event Processing in
Distributed Enterprise Systems.


Said

> -----Original Message-----
> From: reaction-tg-bounces at ruleml.org [mailto:reaction-tg-
> bounces at ruleml.org] On Behalf Of Asaf Adi
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:12 AM
> To: reaction-tg at ruleml.org
> Subject: Re: [Reaction-tg] New Member Introduction...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to welcome David to the TG and to thank him for the
comments.
> We should definitely discuss them on the next call.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dr. Asaf Adi
> IBM Research Lab in Haifa
> Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905
> e-mail: adi at il.ibm.com, Tel: +972 4 8296455, Fax: +972 4 8296116
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                       David W Ash
>                       <dash at juno.com>            To:       reaction-
> tg at ruleml.org
>                       Sent by:                   cc:
>                       reaction-tg-bounces        Subject:
[Reaction-tg]
> New Member Introduction...
>                       @ruleml.org
> 
> 
>                       29/01/04 21:50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I wanted to quickly introduce myself because I am a new member of the
> Reaction Rules TG.  My name is David Ash--I've worked pretty
extensively
> on rule-based and artificial intelligence systems in the past.  Most
> recently,
> I've worked a lot on real time trading systems both in Chicago and New
> York in options, fixed income, and other derivatives markets.  I
believe
> there
> are very strong potential applications for RuleML, and in particular
> reaction
> rules, in trading and compliance systems.
> 
> I also spent nearly four years at Brightware/Mindbox, working on
> ART*Enterprise consulting projects, and co-authored Planning for Real
Time
> Event Response Management in 2000.
> 
> I'm definitely looking forward to participating in this forum--I
wasn't
> able to
> participate in the telecon this Tuesday because of a telecon snafu but
> hope
> to do so in the future.
> 
> In the meantime, Asaf asked me to look over the white paper and give
my
> thoughts from the point of view of someone who hasn't been involved in
the
> process so far and thus might be able to give a fresh perspective.  A
few
> thoughts initially come to mind:
> 
> --The white paper does a good job of defining what a reaction rule is.
It
> might, however, be good to define what type of rule is not a reaction
> rule.
> It seems to me that, potentially, any rule whatsoever can be viewed as
a
> response to some kind of event, and is therefore a reaction rule.  Is
a
> reaction
> rule, therefore, characterized more by how we express the rule--a rule
> expressed in terms of events is a reaction rule, and a rule expressed
in
> terms
> of preconditions is not a reaction rule?  Is it the contention of the
> group
> that
> pretty much any rule-based system can be expressed in terms of
reaction
> rules?  That would probably be my own belief--if it is the belief of
the
> group
> and the white paper, it should probably be so stated in the white
paper.
> 
> --It would be good--and I mention this primarily because it is my own
> background--to include some kind of a model of time, probably in
> conjunction with the event model.  Certain kinds of events require
> response
> faster than other events, and this needs to be modeled.  Certain kinds
of
> events are disastrous if you don't respond quickly.  Other kinds of
events
> require a quick response if you are going to respond at all, but if
you
> let
> slip
> by the results are not catastrophic.  Certain kinds of events allow
more
> time
> but do require response eventually.  Certain kinds of events have a
notion
> of
> diminishing returns where the faster you respond, the better.
> 
> --In conjunction with the event and time models, someone at some point
is
> probably going to need to look at designing large scale search
> algorithms--probably
> along the same lines as the major search engines use--to allow large
> organizations
> on an enterprise wide basis to respond in real time to events using
> reaction
> rules.  You have a very large, distributed knowledge base, events
> happening
> all
> the time, and varying needs for response.  I'm not sure if the classic
> Rete
> algorithm scales up to this type of situation.  Looking at what the
major
> search
> engines are doing, in terms of a distributed knowledge base, and then
> combining
> with classic Rete techniques, might be the way to go.  If everything
> described
> in the white paper is ultimately implemented, you have an enterprise
wide
> rules
> engine which is a very different problem technically from what rules
> engines
> have traditionally been applied to.
> 
> These are my thoughts right now.  I'll let you know if I have anything
to
> add.
> I'm open to starting work on some of my suggestions myself, and am
open to
> discussions either in email or in the telecon.  Looking forward to
next
> Tuesday.
> 
> David Ash, Ph.D.
> Real Time Agents Inc.
> 446 N. Wells St. #214
> Chicago, IL 60610
>  _______________________________________________
> Reaction-tg mailing list
> Reaction-tg at ruleml.org
> http://mail.ruleml.org/mailman/listinfo/reaction-tg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Reaction-tg mailing list
> Reaction-tg at ruleml.org
> http://mail.ruleml.org/mailman/listinfo/reaction-tg