New Algorithm From Dr. Forgy

Greetings:

Yes, that's right, folks.  Dr. Forgy is working on a new algorithm that, as Diana (his wife who is also a computer programmer from CMU) puts it, "Blows the old Rete 2 / Rete III algorithm right out of the water."  No, it is not ready yet.  There are still several parts to work out and it may not be completed until the end of the year.  

I talked with Dr. Forgy yesterday afternoon about that (and some other things) and he gave me permission to disclose it.  He said that the new algorithm (as yet unnamed) should be about 10 times faster (hopefully) than the Rete 2 / Rete III Algorithm.  And, the really cool part is that he will be discussing this at the October Rules Fest.   What he will discuss and how much will be revealed is still to be determined since it won't be finished (again, hopefully) until the end of summer, just before the October Rules Fest.

The name?  He doesn't have one yet.  I suggested CLiF Algorithm (his initials are CLF) but he thought that was too much ego and, if you have ever met the man, he has a small ego and is a totally "nice guy" - something unusual in our day and time.  But, having given away the original Rete Algorithm (it was his Ph.D. thesis done under a DoD grant) I think that he would like to retain the license on this one and have some kind of royalty for the use of it.  As you may or may not know, Rete 2 / Rete III is licensed ONLY to Fair Isaac under his agreements when FIC bought Rules Power way back when.

Bottom line:  (1) New Algorithm from Dr. Forgy.  (2) Dr. Forgy will be discussing this at October Rules Fest this year.  (3) The new algorithm "blows Rete 2 out of the water".  :-)  (4)  The new ORF 2009 site will be up and running this week so that you can register early and take advantage of the "Early Bird" discount.

SDG

jco

4-CPU Laptop and 32-Gig thumb Drive: Cheap!!

Greetings:

Some time ago I blogged about a Toshiba and a Dell laptop with 4 CPUs for about $5,000.  Now Fry's (mostly in CA and TX) has an HP, Intel Q9000 Core-2-Quad laptop for only $1699.  It includes:

18.4" Screen, 1920x1080p HD Quality 

NVidia GeForce 9600M with 512MB of Video RAM

4 GB of RAM

500 GB internal HD

Light Scribe Blue-Ray ROM and DVD Reader/Writer

Altec Lansing Dolby Home Theatre speakers w/Sub Woofer

HP Webcam and Microphone built in

Intel WiFi link and Bluetooth

Part Number Xq8-1180us #5807463

Almost makes me what to change sides in the Mac vs Windows war.

Since my Macbook Pro has only 150 GB HD and it's about 90% full I need to carry around an external HD now to off-load my picture from iPhoto.  Solution:  Patriot 32GB thumb drive for only $44.99 after the mail-in rebate that you never get for some obscure reason.  But, even so, it's EVER so much easier than carting around the external HD that you cannot hook up on an airplane without a lot of hassle. 

I might even have enough room for my iTunes music on the thumb drive as well.  Ain't technology just grand?  :-)  I can't wait for my Palm Pilot Treo to die so I can get an iPhone.  But, just throwing it away when it is still working would be against my religion.

SDG

jco

Rules or Code ????

Greetings:

Currently there is a bit of discussion on some of the developer groups as to, "Why not use scripting languages rather than a rulebase?" Good question and it deserves an answer.

One of the problems with rules is that those "outside" the rulebase community have little idea of what belongs in a rulebase and what does not. Nor do they have any idea of what constitutes a BRMS or a rulebase. So, before we run off and begin suggesting that folks use Java Script (or something equally mundane) to contain the rules, perhaps we should examine WHY we are developing a rulebase (and tacking a BRMS interface on top of it) in the first place. What follows will probably be elementary to most but maybe it will remind us of what it is that we are trying to accomplish.

A rulebase has been around since the late 1950's with Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist that preceded even the moniker of "AI". See https://www.rulelab.net/ for more discussion on this. A rulebase initially was to allow psychologists and programmers to try and solve a sticky problem when all of the rules were not known and so that there would not have to be a certain order of rule insertion into a program to be sure that one rule would not fire before another. They called this declarative programming and it is significantly different to all other languages such as BASIC, COBOL, Algol, FORTRAN, C, C++, Java and all of the scripting languages. They were trying to figure out how the brain works when is has a problem with conflicting rules and overriding rules and developed a system where the rulebase literally "chews" on the rules until there are no more rules to execute.

But, the question still remains, "What is a rule?" Or, as our business brethren put it, "What is a business rule?" More importantly, perhaps we should ask, "What is NOT a rule?" First, it is not data validation, even though I have used a rulebase (JRules) to do that very thing so that the business analysts could create, change and/or modify the rules without having to explain to the IT guys WHY this was true. (Shame on me for having been a party to such a venture but it paid the bills for 18 months.) I have a potential client now who has 10K+ so-called "rules" that are nothing more than data validation and they don't have any idea of what is a rule for a rulebase and what is a rule for Java/C++. No clue.

Another time that you should NOT use a rulebase is when you have to begin inserting more that three levels of priority. This alone indicates that the underlying problem is procedural in nature rather than declarative. I have seen so-called rulebased programs with as many a nine levels of priority. What this indicates is either ignorance on the part of the developer or lazy programming. This is much like the infamous "goto" statement in BASIC and other languages - yes, you CAN do it but it is NOT good programming. Just so with priority - use rule sets or rule flow (which I dearly hate but it seems to be a necessary evil) rather than so many levels of priority. (I prefer goal-oriented programming to rulesets but, in the end, it's pretty much the same thing.)

A BRMS, on the other hand, is nothing more than a cool interface and lots of toys to make the rulebase more appealing to the business guys. Remember them? The are the ones with the money who will buy our toys for us to solve their petty problems that could have been solved using any of the procedural languages. However, this does move 100% of the verification of the rulebase over into the business world where it belongs and allows the IT guys to go about their business of J2EE, database problems, web design and things of that nature.

But, and here's the crucial part: What is a valid case for using a rulebase? According to Girratano and Riley way back in 1998 (and they haven't changed much since then) the following are all guidelines for using a rulebase:

Can the problem be solved more effectively using conventional programming?
Is the domain well-bounded?
Is there a need and a desire for an expert system?
Is there at least one human expert who is willing to cooperate?
Can the expert explain his/her logic so that it is programmable?
Is the problem solution mainly heuristic or uncertain?

If these questions can not be answered, "Yes." (with the exception of the fist one) then probably you do not have a rulebase problem but rather a Java/C++/Scripting problem. If most can be answered, "Yes." then and one or two are "No." then you should carefully examine the potential hazards with using a rulebase.

You know, most businesses projects that I have had over the years, with a couple of notable exceptions, usually came straight out of the company manuals and NOT from domain experts. Who wrote the rules and WHY they wrote the rules was unknown for the most part. All the business guys usually know is that their competition is using a rulebased system for solving their problems and their business guys are getting to use a rulebase to do it so we have to do it as well. And the rationale that they use to justify such a solution is oftentimes amazing.

Whatever you do, have fun. You will have times when a client just insists on using a $1M+ rulebase to just keep track of rules that would be better suited to SQL or scripting. (Maybe their golfing buddy sells those things?) To keep your ethics in line, point out all of the obvious reasons for NOT using a rulebase and if the client insists on misusing a rulebase, take the money and run. :-)

SDG
jco

Benchmarks 2009

Greetings:

As is my wont (don't you just love Old English?) I will be running my annual "First Quarter - No Quarter Given" benchmarks beginning in January of 2009. Right now I'm limited to existing benchmarks of Waltz-50, WaltzDB-16 (almost all Rete-engine vendors) and some of them for the WaltzDB-200, a new version of WaltzDB-16 but using 200 variations rather than 16 - that should prove interesting.

Also, the platforms will be limited to Mac OS X running on a Dual G5 with 4GB of RAM and a Core2Duo running with 3GB of RAM. I have beefed up the Windows-32bit XP (Dual Threaded single CPU) machine to 3GB of RAM just to be able to run certain software that is incompatible with either Mac (Unix) or Windows Vitria-64-bit OS on i7 CPU.

IF, and let me emphasize the IF, I can get the time I will have benchmarks for Decision Table (only?) engines with a 10K and 100K Telecom Benchmark that will do nothing more than show off processing power of single-row data validation. So far, the DT vendors have not been very helpful in coming up with a benchmark of their own this past year so I pretty much label all of the a 5 in terms of performance - meaning that it's neither good nor bad; pretty much an unknown. Mostly because my editor won't all me to give them a zero. :-)

Also, we might do some of what Peter Lin and/or Mark Proctor suggested in the way of "micro-benchmarks" that would remove any level of cheating. If we throw in Gary Riley's Sudoku and/or the 64-Queens problem, we'll have something else that is not actually business related but will give some indication of engine performance.

The benchmarks will be

1. Waltz-50
2. WaltzDB-16
3. WaltzDB-200
4. 10K Telecom
5. 100K Telecom
6. MicroBenchmarks
7. Sudoku
8. 64-Queens

The classes of vendors will be

1. Rete-based engines, internal objects (CLIPS (?), JRules, Advisor, Jess, Drools, etc.)
2. Rete-based engines, external objects (CLIPS, JRules, Advisor, Jess, Drools, etc.)
2. Compiled Java Engines (Visual Rules, OPSJ, JRules, Advisor, Drools, etc.)
3. Sequential Compiled Java Engines (Visual Rules, JRules, Advisor, Drools(?), et al)
4. Decision Table Vendors (Corticon, Visual Rules, Haley Office System, VisiRules, etc. but could include JRules, Advisor and Drools)

Folks, that's a LOT of work for one little old Texas boy unless I can find someone independent to help AND if I can get some help from the vendors writing these benchmarks to be checked by myself and any independent help that I can get. If you want to help (and thereby ensure your name be placed with the other immortals of rulebase benchmarking) send me your name and we'll get you started.

Remember, to help with the overall project, you MUST be independent and NOT working for any of the vendors that are being tested. (You can be working on any vendors project as long as you are being paid by the client and NOT by the vendor.) To help with the project from a vendor point of view, all I need is the code for all of the tests in the appropriate syntax for that vendor. I (we) still have to read it and verify that nobody cheated but that should be really helpful and will be duly noted in the tables that will be published.

Maybe, just maybe, (no agreement yet) InfoWorld or some other equally high-visibility journal will be willing to publish these benchmarks in the form of an article of some kind. Otherwise, it will be just another blog on benchmarks. :-)

SDG
jco

NON-Documentation

Greetings:

Did you ever download a software package and start reading the Readme.txt or ReadMeFirst.html file to see how to install everything and then find out that it had not been changed recently? Or that you downloaded the Mac OS X version, installed the Mac OS X version only to find out that all of the instructions were for either Windows or Linux? OK, so Linux should be close, right? If it works, yes. If it doesn't work, wrong!

I just downloaded ILOG JRules Studio 6.7.2 Evaluation package. The instructions clearly state
=======================
To run Rule Studio do one of the following:

In Windows, use the shortcut: Start > All Programs > ILOG > ILOG JRules > ILOG Rule Studio for Java.
On Linux, start Eclipse using the executable in /studio
=======================

Nope. Not on Mac. There are some .app files there but they don't run on the Mac - maybe on Solaris or Linux, I wouldn't know since I usually do everything on a Mac or, sometimes, Windows. So, you have to find the build.xml file, read through it, and see if you can modify it so that you can make it run on the Mac properly.

And, remember all of those older files that you had to run under JRules? Forget it. You may as well rewrite all of that stuff using the "New and Improved" Eclipse interface. (Personally, I like writing my rules with a text editor but even the old BAL was kind of nice.)

Have you read through the Drools documentation recently? I really like Mark Proctor, Edson Terelli and the rest of the Drools guys - and I like the product - but they write what HAS to be the worst documentation in the industry. BUT, now that they are moving into "Big Boy" territory of BRMS tools (Advisor, jRules, etc.) Red Hat needs to hire a team of "real" Technical Writers to come in and help with writing proper documentation. I certainly hope that they do something soon or the only people using Drools will be the ones who can use the rulebase engine only and forget any of the ancillary bells and whistles that they have spent the past eight to twelve months adding to Drools.

I guess that the best documentation that I have seen is (forgive me for plugging an ex-employer) is the Fair Isaac stuff. Good docs that (usually) agree with the current version and is easy to use. Visual Rules docs are probably a close second. I've never had the privilege of using Haley Expert Rules so I can't say about them. I did look at Haley Office Rules but wasn't overly impressed with their documentation. ILOG JRules (the purchased version) documents used to be on a par with FIC but recently they have tried to go the "El Cheapo" route and skimp on that end of the product.

Anyway, before you DO happen to download the Studio, go to the chat room and see all of the problems that they are having with this "freebie" that they are putting out for six-month evaluation. THEN, if you still want it, at least you have been forewarned.

SDG
jco

Bringing RuleBased Forecasting (RBF) to 2009

Greetings:

We have started an Expert Systems Consulting Group over at http://ExSCG.blogspot.com and, for now, the leadoff topic is that of RuleBased Forecasting. If you would like to work on this, drop by the blog and check in. If you want to blog on that link, let me know and I'll add you to the list of bloggers there. If you want to work on the project, drop me a email and I'll see how we can distribute the load so that all can be involved. Don't worry, there's lots to do but we have a few weeks to get started. :-)

SDG
jco

Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession

Greetings:

I ran across this today because one the members of another blog had joined and put that organization down as something to which he belonged. I went over and read over the charter and the pledge. I would that everyone would pledge to abide by the moral and ethical conventions that are espoused there. I fear, however, that some my have joined just to be joining - much like some folks just join the church because their spouse joined - a desire to fit with their contemporaries.

Regardless, check it out. If you think that you can live with the pledge, I encourage you to agree to abide by the by laws and the pledge agreement.

http://caeap.org/default.aspx

SDG
jco

Name Changes

Greetings:

As a follow-up to the previous blog, Rolando Hernandez has changed his blog from BRxG to an even higher level, Agility Alliance ( AA) that encompasses BRxG. He has put up a framework for lots of different groups for other to blog. I encourage you to visit there but don't forget the Expert Systems Consulting Group. One (AA) has more of a business focus and slant while the other (ExSCG) is more of a technical gathering without the pictures and Google Ads. Both have a purpose in life and, I suppose, that AA will blossom with members while ExSCG will grow more slowly but should be far more technical. It just depends on what you want out of life. :-)

SDG
jco

Too Many Blogs?

Greetings:

A friend of mine was hesitant to start up another blog on BRMS since I have two (this one, which is my "personal" blog and Expert Systems Consulting blog at http://exscg.blogspot.com/ which encourages other experienced consultants to blog there on common subjects.) My immediate answer is NO! But, what we could do is to promote all of the other blogs on AI, Rulebased Systems, Rulebased Forecasting, Neural Nets, Constraint Programming, Complex Event Processing, specific vendor blogs, etc. What this will do is to make everyone aware that there is more than one way to skin a cat - or any other animal.

But here's the thing - most blogs allow you to post links to other blogs and some, like BlogSpot, allow you to include a short snipped of the latest blog and when the last blog there was written. If done in this manner then the reader can determine which one to visit. After all, we don't have time to go hither, thither and yon to visit blogs that we have either seen before, that are two or three years old or that don't pique our interest.

So, WHY should anyone blog on the ExSCB above if they have their own blog? Because, unlike my private blog that accepts only comments on my own blog, this will allow that reader to respond with a blog that is "front and center" and either start another thread or comment that will catch you attention. If you read my private blog, you don't get to see some of the really astute comments that others have made.

So, while I like for readers to follow what is happening on my blog, I really encourage readers to visit (what I hope will be) a much better blog that takes in the opinions of everyone. Blogs might replace meetings, which is what Rolando is trying to do with BRxG blog at http://brexperts.ning.com/ by putting in slides, video, several SIGs, and is focused more on the Business side of rulebased systems; the CxO guys and Technical Managers.

SDG
jco

Complex Event Processing

Greetings:

Carole-Ann Berlioz-Matignon started another small fire storm on her blog about Complex Event Processing.  In running the rabbit trails of I did find another blog on CEP by Tim Bass of Tibco that seems to take a more academic approach to CEP that uses lots of pictures, paragraphs of polysyllabic words and phrases that take some time to read.  Charles Young, he of UK fame, even chimed in with his usual lucid and erudite thoughts.  I did read through the blogs and now I'm pretty sure that no one has a really good grasp on a definitive answer to, "What is CEP?"  

I think my FIRST comment is that neither CEP nor Rulebased Systems nor Neural Nets are "Business" only pursuits, although Fair Isaac, ILOG, Tibco, IBM, Microsoft and others are desperately trying to force everything computer-related into their own pre-defined concept of how that particular tool might be effected in the business world while relegating the rest of the world (physics, chemistry, geology, psychology, medicine, electronics, forecasting, analytics, etc, etc.) to non-essential importance.  They will deny it, of course, but, nevertheless, their actions cry much louder than their words.  If it cannot be forced into their world of business applications then it does not deserve consideration.

Back to the matter at hand:  Wikipedia defines a CEP as "... primarily an event processing concept that deal with the task of processing multiple events with the goal of identifying the meaningful events within within the event cloud.   CEP employs techniques such as detection of complex patterns of many events, event correlation and abstraction, event hierarchies, and relationships between events such as causality, membership, and timing, and event-driven processes."  By it's very name, it is an Event - not something static - and it is Complex in that there MUST be something that about the event(s) that makes it not easily solvable or analyzed.

Since the definition seems to be getting in the way, let's say what it is NOT.  It is not:

• Simple
  
• Time comparisons (only)
  
• Rules (only)
  
• Processes (only)
  
• Neural Net (only)
  
• Necessarily Distributed
  

So, now that we (OK, just me) have said what it is NOT maybe we can say what it might be.  (This part is what is open for discussion.)  How about this?  "A Complex Event is any event in time that is composed of multiple facts - whether static or dynamic - or events the outcome of which defy ordinary logic and the outcome is solvable according to either rules or neural networks and the same set of facts and events always have the same resultant process."  Or something like that.   What a CEP is NOT is BRMS, an inference process (only) nor any one set of things that would constrain the solution.

For example, forecasting is an extremely complex process wherein only the short term can be predicted with any degree of accuracy.  If any financial forecasting package could predict the future within 5% within the next 12 months then the owner would make a small fortune.  You just can't know everything about everything.  Personally, my goal is that between now and October Rules Fest for 2009 I will have made some kind of significant progress on a commercially viable forecasting package.  If nothing else, my goal of understanding exactly HOW to do event-driven-rule-constrained-forecasting will be better.  

SDG

jco

ORF 2009 Blog

ORF 2009 has it's own blog now at http://ORF2009.blogspot.com - please pay a visit because that's where we will be organizing everything for the next October Rules Fest.  Thanks,

SDG

jco

Drools 5.0 M3 is Available

Drools 5.0 M3 is out and they are getting close to a general release.  But there is a TON of work to be done on the documentation that is out of synch with anything including M2 and probably M1, especially on the BRMS.  On the other hand, they are spreading out so five different fronts at one time - this is a MASSIVE undertaking to do with five full-time people and a handful of part-time contributors.  Check out http://www.drools.org to get the download, documentation (such as it is) and check out what is going to be the future of share-ware BRMS.  (Note:  BRMS by the traditional definition is NOT the same as defined by Drools.)  But, overall, they are closer and closer to what Fair Isaac and ILOG are putting out.  If you rank Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor and ILOG JRules as about a 8, 9 or 10, then Drools would be about a 5 with a bullet.  At their present rate of development, they will catch them (but only if the Big Two stand still) in a couple of years.

SDG

jco

Modern Times

Greetings:

Taking time out from product evaluations just to go into idle gear and read some stuff that's been stacking up since last spring sometime.  So, here we go:

Self-Healing Carbon Fiber applications:  Did you happen to see the latest movie on Batman -  Batman Begins?  Did you wonder where Hollywood gets those wacky ideas?  Some are not so wacky.  It seems that that fiber already exists.  There's an article about it in Spectrum, (Oct 2008, p.28) the IEEE magazine that all members receive, called, "Self-Healing Hulls" and it's mostly about self-healing boat/auto/airplane bodies made from carbon fiber.  But, from the description it sounds exactly how Batman's wings operated when they "snapped" in to place.  Wow!

Multi-Core Processors:  Same magazine, page 15.  SAVE YOUR MONEY!!  A report by Sandia Labs says that a 4-core CPU will deliver almost as much speed as an 8-core CPU.  But both deliver more than a 2-, 16-, 32- or 64-CPU machine.  (They didn't say HOW they tested, but, hey!  It's the IEEE combined with Sandia Labs - yes, those labs of Jess fame - so they have to be correct.  Right?)  A 2-CPU machine is on a par with a 16-CPU machine.  The fastest was the 8-core but not by much over the 4-core.  Now, remember, they are checking the speed on only ONE application, not lots of applications nor those requiring lots of threads such as Parallel Rulebased Systems.  But for most rulebased systems, a single application should run fine on 4- or 8-core machines.  If you have 64 or 128 cores, have the other cores working on something else, like a database access or screen updates (which really should have their own processors and memory) or doing complicated math routines.  Sandia Labs, in conjunction with Oak Ridge Labs in Tennessee, are experimenting with stacking memory directly on top of the CPU.

Toshiba Quad-Core Laptop:  Yes, you read that correctly.  QUAD-core on a Laptop.  Called the Qosmio (Kos'-mi-o) it weighs in at 10.8 pounds (about 5Kg) it's a monster.  But, on the up side it comes WITH

• 4GB RAM
  
• 2x250GB HDD
  
• 1066MHz Front Side Bus
  
• 512MB NVidia Graphics 9600 Video
  
• 18.4" WS, 1680x945 Display
  
• Built-in Camera with Microphone
  
• Blue Tooth and Wireless Built-in
  
• $1549.99 USD
  

OK, it's heavy, it's more expensive than most laptops today but cheaper than my 17" MacBook Pro, Core-2 Duo Apple.  Unfortunately, it also comes with Microsoft Windows Vitri 64-bit OS.  But, guys! - it has FOUR CORES on a LAPTOP!!  See Toshiba for more info.  

Thanksgiving USA:  Finally, Thanksgiving in the USA is next Thursday.  Students and teachers in the USA take the entire week off.  Factories shut down Wednesday noon, sometimes the whole week.  Department stores get ready for "Black Friday" by shutting down on Thursday, stocking up and having sales that start as early as midnight Thursday but usually at 6:00 a.m. on Friday morning.  And the lines begin forming right after midnight but are already formed by 5:00 a.m.  

The question is, who are YOU going to thank for what you have?  Even if you are unemployed, you have access to an internet connection or you wouldn't be reading this.  But, the question remains:  Who do you thank?  Yourself?  Now, that's being silly.  Mom and Dad for making you what you are?  Good start.  The government?  No, WAY, Jack!!  Go back to the original Thanksgiving day and see what they did and why on Wikipedia entry on Thanksgiving.  While you're there, look up Squanto, the Pilgrims and their reasons for forming, migration to Amsterdam, their eventual voyage to what would become New England, the Mayflower Compact, their incredibly poor planning that led them to become dependent on Squanto, etc, etc.  All very interesting...  

SDG

jco

Codeless Programming

Greetings:

InfoWorld (Tom Kandshige, author, and Doug Dineley, editor) ran an article today (20 Nov 2008) on codeless programming, mostly around Coghead and Caspio Bridge (for MS guys).  But they did mention just a bit about the BRMS world on page two.  OK, ok...   It was only one paragraph on page two that nobody else probably read but at least they mentioned KBSC.  :-)  We may do more on this later but for now I'm just inviting comments about the so-called "Codeless Programming" world.  Thanks,

SDG

jco

Senior BRMS Consultants / Architects and Head Hunters

Greetings:

OK, I called them by the more socially acceptable name of "Head Hunters" rather than their normal name of "pimp" which would make us, the technical personnel, the "ladies of the evening."  But here's the problem:  These guys have absolutely NO IDEA of what is the difference between someone who went to a one-week school and spent a couple of months on a rulebased (BRMS) project and someone who has 10 - 20 years experience in the field.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zero.  To them, a body is a body is a body and if the person proclaims that they hung the moon and stars in the heaven above they they forward the resume on to the next level if that person answers a simple question correctly:  "What is your billing rate and is that all-inclusive?"

In other words, you won't make it to the evaluation round of hiring and working on a project unless you are willing to work for minimum wage.  (Minimum wage in our industry is about $40 or $50 per hour.)  Traveling expenses, usually around $25 to $35 per hour, take up most of that.  So you have to pay your bills with $15 to $25 per hour.  

And the worst offenders seem to be those working with the larger companies such as Sogeti and Accenture.  These companies assign some flunkie from off-shore to do the initial screening for $5 per hour or (usually) so much per resume processed.  This flunkie knows NOTHING about programming nor AI - the flunkie knows only that so many resumes have to be processed every day and if the flunkie happens to find a nugget in the bottom of the pan, so much the better. 

And the part that REALLY gets to me is when they ask, "Well, how well do you know this product?"  This interview had to be scripted by a complete moron!  More than likely they would ask Dr. Forgy if he knew anything about the Rete Algorithm - but that would assume that they had the intelligence to actually know about the Rete Algorithm in the first place.  Any one looking for a job who has been out of work for a few months would self-rate themselves as 9/10 on anything for which the pimp-company is searching.  And the flunkie!  All thy ask is whether you know the name of the vendor / tool and what is your billing rate.

New tactic:  I don't respond to anyone who calls and asks such a stupid question.  If they call and immediately ask my billing rate, I just tell them to go READ THE FABULOUS RESUME!  At least take the time to read it.  I have been in that position when looking for rule team members and I NEVER called or responded to anyone unless I had taken the time to actually read through the resume first.  And I always asked for references AND I always called (or emailed) their references to be sure that we we on the same page.

SDG

jco

ORF 2009 - Call for White Papers

Greetings:

We're starting early this year in our call for papers.  For ORF 2009, regardless of the location and timing, because of the demand from the final session on ORF 2008, we think that it would be best to have ALL of the papers (except for "possibly" a tutorial session prior to ORF 2009) be on the APPLICATION OF RULEBASED SYSTEMS IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.  

Here is the difference between ORF 2008 and anything that BR Forum is doing:  This entire conference will focus on the following:

• Real World Business or Industry Application

1. Supply Chain Management
   
2. Forecasting and Quantitative Analysis
   
3. Insurance
4. Banking and Mortages
5. Processing Plant Operations
6. Geology
7. Medicine
8. Science (Chemistry, Physics, Math, etc)
9. Engineering (EE, ME, CE, etc.)

• What was needed
  
• What was the approach
  
• What was the architecture
  
• Was the problem solved completely
  
• Show the architecture of the rules
  
• Examples of rules (yes, screen shots are permissible)
• Neural Network Solutions to problems are encouraged
• Solutions should have contained at least 200 rules but there is no maximum

While the main part or most of the rules "might" be business confidential and not displayed, that's OK so long as the attendees are shown the rules that had the most effect on the outcome.   What we do NOT want are the following:

• NO Product Demonstrations per se
  
• NO Toy example systems
  
• And nothing to do with a Pet Store UNLESS it was a real Pet Store!  :-)

So, any comments?  This was what most of the attendees at ORF 2008 seemed to want.  I'll probably put out an email later pointing everyone to this blog since most are not using the RSS feed to keep themselves updated.  (We don't have an ORF blog right now but maybe next month.)

SDG

jco

Yaakov and the Sabbath

Greetings:

Yaakov Kohen, my West Texas Jewish Cowboy friend who, at times, serves as my alter ego, has posted the first in what might be a series of blogs on the Sabbath.  He's kind of strange but a lovable kind of guy - typical Texan who chooses to walk his own path rather than "fit in" with the rest of the group.  Anyway, check out his blog when you get a chance.

http://yaakov2.wordpress.com

SDG

jco

ORF 2009 - Le Deuxieme

Greetings:

ORF 2008

Overall, the conference was quite good - I really enjoyed it and just want to thank ALL of you for turning out. If you had to miss one this year, this was a good one and not one to have missed. The price was right and the place was right and the speakers were, for the most part, right on. :-)

ORF 2009:

 Just some random thoughts - none of which have been discussed with the other guys associated with ORF - but things that I'm just "thinking" about for now. So, anything that I say here is open for discussion, additions, or deletions.

Dates: Tentatively scheduled for October 21st, 22nd and 23rd of 2009.

Location tentatively scheduled for either Fort Worth (TX), San Antonio (TX), Corpus Christi (TX), Miami (FL), San Francisco (CA), Delmar (CA), Nice (France), Paris (France), London (UK), or Munich (Deutchland). Anywhere that is warm to avoid a 22% convention tax PLUS another 8.5% sales tax on everything that we do. Europe would probably mean an October 7th, 8th and 9th.

Presentations

We'll begin to get abstracts right after the first of the year. Upon the review of the abstracts by the Peer Review Committee abstracts will be temporarily approved. This year we hope to get more technical presentations of "how to" rather than theory. Also, only one Keynote speaker and that one on the first day only.

Full White Paper in PDF format suitable for publication must be submitted by April 15th.

Slides in PDF Format must be submitted by June 15th.

Final Approval to be given to all speakers not later than August 1st.

Sponsors
Diamond (3 max)
Platinum (3 max)
Gold (5 max)
Silver (10 Max)
Bronze (no limit)

Returning sponsors would have first right of refusal on sponsorships at their previous level.

Possibly we could have "Lunch Sponsors" who would, in addition to their regular sponsorship of Diamond or Platinum, want to sponsor Lunch for all attendees AND the Lunch Sponsor would have that time to present a demo of their product. ONLY during that time!!

We could also have "Pub Sponsors" who would be able, in addition to their regular sponsorship of any level, use a main room for drinks, appetizers and spirited conversation.


OK - that's it for now. Let me know what you think and we'll keep everyone in the loop from this blog. Stay tuned.

SDG
jc

ORF 2009

Greetings:

Yes, we are already planning for next year - although I may not do this one. But, at least I can get it started... For next year we will have to change things a bit. Here are some ideas floating around.

Finances: First is that the attendance fee will have to be be $300 minimum but probably more like $500 for all three days. I can't see that the attendance charge will mean much since the local folks didn't come anyway (not many) and another $500 for those who did stay at the hotel will be just under what the hotel room itself costs. And we'll have to negotiate the coffee expense next year: $68 per gallon for Starbucks is outrageous since that comes out to a bit over $3 per 6-ounce cup of coffee. Starbucks is good but...

Speakers: We probably should pay them about $1,000 each honorarium to help with their time and expenses. I'm not sure that we can get Dr. Forgy, Gary Riley and some of the others back next year unless we have something like that. Without them as a drawing card I seriously doubt that there can even be an ORF 2009. Also, we need to get John Zachman to come and be one of the keynote speakers. (No more managers as speakers - not even for keynotes!!) Yes, that will run the cost of the conference up by about $30K but it should return its value in the quality of speakers.

Speakers Per Vendor: Only one per vendor-sponsored per day. Period. EOL. Even with two or three tracks.

Vendor-sponsored lunch: If the Lunch period is two hours each day then we could have three vendor presentations (which would not count as a regular presentation) and a free lunch for attendees. The vendors (only the Platinum ones) would be allowed to also present a full-blown demo during lunch for about an hour. I'm sure that we would have lots of folks who would attend a demo for a really good (free) lunch, right? :-)

Time Allowed for presentations: Maybe the presentations should be 1.5 hours each with a 15 minute break in between. That will leave about 20 minutes for Q&A time plus some time in between to allow setups. That means two in the morning if we start at 8:30 and three in the afternoon for a total of only 15 presentations. BUT, if we have two tracks then we will have 30 talks available. Just some thoughts - comments are encouraged and welcome.

Talks: ALL presentation will HAVE to be submitted en toto not later than June 1, 2009, before approval and publication. We got sandbagged this year by some abstracts that said one thing and the talk that floated in the week before the conference was quite something else. Talks will have to be in two formats; one is the traditional PPT or PDF but the other will be a "White Paper" suitable for publication. Also, we should have an approval board that is completely independent of the conference that will approve all talks - meaning that the talks will now be juried presentations and suitable for publication as a booklet or a book after the conference is over.

Location: We need some feedback on the hotel. Most seemed to think that it was OK but could be better. Also, maybe next year we could do this in San Antonio on the River Walk near the original Alamo. San Antonio is also just about 5 miles south of a VERY large German community. Or Austin which is just north of the German Community. Hawaii or The French Rivera would be nice too but we would have to raise the price to $1,500.

Logo: If we have it in France, then the ORF logo could be emblazoned on "an itsy bitsy, teeny weeny, yellow, polka-dot bikini" and we would have the ORF-Dog logo on 1-liter steins, coffee mugs and T-Shirts. :-)

Time of Conference: I still like having it the week before BR Forum BUT it has to be in late October when it finally gets cool here in Texas. Geeks at ours, Business guys at theirs. And, hopefully, they will meet up at their various companies when they get home. If we have it in France, then maybe late Summer. (Yes, I really was serious about that.)

Something that we had not considered is having memberships (stock ownership) for sale that would help to sponsor all of the events. If each share costs $1,000 and each share had one vote then that would follow good accounting principles.

Anyway, just some thoughts... let me know what you think.

SDG
jco

ORF 2008 - First Report

Greetings:

Third day just starting. This supposed to be the "meat" of the conference. We had desert the first day. Veggies the second day. Raw meat today. Brief recap of the most memorable presentations:

--- Wednesday ---

Rolando Hernandez did a great explanation of Zachman's framework showing how rules fit into the the enterprise. Several Red Hat guys (not the Drools guys) commented that this was what they needed; something that was not so geeky but at a higher level.

Jason Morris: Great talk on Ontology, a subject that few rulebase people ever consider since most are not AI graduates but probably computer science and C/C++ or Java geeks who just drifted into the field.

Edson Terelli: Covered what Drools is doing with the early stages of Complex Event Processing without drifting too much into a product demonstration, something that seems really difficult for the Drools guys because they are all so hyped by their own product. Even Dr. Frogy commented that the talk was really good.

Michael Neal stayed home with his pregnant spousal unit who was due on Thursday of ORF week.

Kris Verlaenen stepped up to delive Mic's talk Guvnor. But he got interrupted by yours truly when he announced that he would now do a Drools demo, something that is totally against the spirit of ORF. I'm sure that his talk would be perfectly suited for some other forum, perhaps a Drools marketing seminar or Java User's Group somewhere but not here. So, we got some wires crossed and Mark Proctor's personality and mine crossed for a few minutes and the talk was over. Me? I blame Mic for hanging Kris out to dry like that. :-)

Pub Night One turned out to be OK since most of us just sat around the hotel lounge and swapped war stories. Some went to supper at one place and some to others.

--- Thursday ---

Dr. Dan Levine opened with a keynote of how the human brain process various thoughts, rules and emotions. I think that knowing how rules are processed in the brain would play a very important role in knowledge acquisition. After all, this whole field owes the origins to the psychology field.

Carole Ann Berlioz-Matigon: Showed us the "other world" of Business Intelligence and Business Analytics and how a rulebase fit into that environment, especially the score card part. I think that most rulebase guys rarely consider that rules play a small part of an overall enterprise IT approach such as that provided by Fair Isaac and other companies.

Carlow Seranno-Morales: Covered Enterprise Decision Management (EDM) from front to back in a gritty (fairly technical) point-of-view. What he and Carole Ann demonstrated was that a rulebase is not the complete answer for a large enterprise - rather it takes of vendors and products that are tightly integrated and rules can be only a small part (sometimes 1/10) of the total solution. The two talks were excellent.

Daniel Selman gave a presentation on sequential rules that verged on product marketing but stayed just out of reach of the "the hook". One thing that he said was that ILOG has a product that is called Rete Non-Node-Merging or something like that. Rete without node merges is not Rete and Dr. Forgy confirmed it later.

Pub Night Two proved to be another bust but lots of great conversations because of the many groups. One such group was composed of Dr. Forgy, Dr. Hicks, Mark Proctor, Gary Riley, Edson Terelli and myself with Steve Nunez joining late. I wish that we had a recorder for what we discussed but one thing came out of it: a slide for my presentation the next day. :-)

--- Friday ---

Rick Hicks: Validation and Verification - mostly verification. This guy is the guru of gurus on this subject and has created modules for CLIPS, OPSJ, Jess and others. He is a professor at Texas A&M but he has his own company, EZ-Xpert. He has published several white papers on his two-tier system; these papers explain WHAT any verification system needs to do to be called a verification system. Excellent talk. Of course he seems to believe that all of the Conflict Resolution Strategies are wrong and that inference engines are most times not needed. See the site for his paper or video presentation.

Gary Riley: (inventor of CLIPS, C Language Integrated Production System) who started at NASA and has been working on the one set of code for 23 years. Being free (or $300 from Comix, the official vendor for CLIPS) this is the "standard" by which so many other rulebased systems are judged. Gary was a very capable speaker and led us deeper into the labyrinth of CLIPS. Beginning with the early days of CLIPS and the reasons for why he did things. He stressed that we need more documentation and many, many more examples to aid the users to understand the systems. Speed is essential. He also talked about how he improved performance on the CLIPS system. A really excellent presentation.

Mark Proctor: (inventor of Drools) did a great discussion on pattern matching, collections, from, etc. Mark also discussed more on multiple entry points on rules for parallel processing.

James Owen: (Yours Truly) Gave a substitute talk (Gary stole my benchmark presentation!) on the original 1979 Rete Algorithm, a second part on the Four Forms of Chaining and, finally, a really brief, four-minute introduction to The History of Parallel Rulebased Programming.

Dr. Charles Forgy gave us a heads up on Parallel Rulebased Programming and why it will be the future of rulebased programming. From what he presented, we, as rulebased systems professionals, need to plan how to parallelize our products and services. Excellent presentation.

Yaakov Kohen showed up and listened in. Interesting fellow.

Pub Night Three turned out pretty good since about 25 of us went to Bone Daddy's, a popular Texas Bar-B-Que joint in North Dallas. Kind of like Hooters but with much younger girls. The food is so good that my wife takes me there from time to time. I'm not allowed to go by myself. :-)

--- Conference Wrap-up ---

LOOONNNGG session on what we wanted more of, less of, suggestions, questions, etc. I hope Rolando and Greg took good notes because we ran out of film before we got very far into it. Here is what little that I gathered:

What attendees want:
1. More question time
2. More time for talks.
3. Donuts and Bagels for breakfast
(David Butler brought donuts on Thursday)
4. Warmer room / Cooler Room / Dimmer Room / Brighter Room
5. MORE Technical talks and less B.S. about products UNLESS it was applicable
6. Maybe two tracks next time; one for beginners and one for Uber Geeks.
7. BOOKS on the subject - what we have is old
8. How To Books on the subject
9. Field is too hard to get into and understand
10. Three days is just about right, not five and not two.

However, we did point out that even selling the few shirts that we had we would probably lose money on the event so everyone agreed that the event should be between $300 and $500 next year (if there is a next year) to help pay for expenses. Apparently setting the cost to $150 to encourage students backfired on us since not one student from the USA attended and only one from the UK.

BTW, if you are an attendee and did not get a shirt and want one, let me know - for a mere $35 + ($10 S/H USA - $15 for outside USA) we'll send you one. Just let us know your size of S / M / L / XL / XXL / XXXL. Greg and I both wear an XXL and Edson Terelli took a Medium so judge accordingly.

------------------------------------------

My conclusions: Great presentations, good coffee, nice folks. For once, it was about 90% Geek and 10% marketing / sales rather than the other way around. If you missed, maybe next year at ORF 2009.

Last thing: Only one person had a comment about my photo. The photo is that of person (a really good friend of mine) throwing a flying side-snap kick with perfect form. What you don't see in the picture is that the person is about 6 feet tall and weighs 215 pounds at the time. If you could see the whole photo you would see that his striking foot is about 5'6" above the ground and he is not using a trampoline to get that high - just lots and lots of training and determination. It proves one thing; success is not easy but it can be done with hard work, determination, proper training and an extremely positive mind set. That's why I keep the photo around - to remind me to keep going when the going gets tough. (Yeah, it's corny but it's true.) Most failures happen because people just give up and begin to see how they can salvage the most from a failure.

Our field is not an easy one and entry to the top level will never be easy. Reading and hard study hurts the head. Planning hurts more. But remember the Seven P's: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance. Also, it is not practice that makes perfect but Proper Perfect Practice Makes Matchless Perfect Performance. (Say that one three times fast!)

SDG
jco