{"id":520,"date":"2013-06-22T18:59:27","date_gmt":"2013-06-22T23:59:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/haleyai.com\/wordpress\/?p=520"},"modified":"2018-07-14T17:19:33","modified_gmt":"2018-07-14T22:19:33","slug":"confessions-of-a-production-rule-vendor-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/haleyai.com\/wordpress\/2013\/06\/22\/confessions-of-a-production-rule-vendor-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Confessions of a production rule vendor (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you are using one of the more popular rules engines, chances are you can blame me.\u00a0 I popularized the technology of forward-chaining production rules based on the Rete Algorithm.\u00a0 Others have certainly contributed; my path<\/a> is the one that led to open-source implementations and many commercial products, including those of IBM, Oracle, SAP, TIBCO, Red Hat, and too many others to mention (e.g., see this<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Today, I want to make clear that the future prospects for production rule technology are diminishing.\u00a0 My objective here is to explain why most rule-based technologies are no good and why some are much better.\u00a0 Although production rule technology is much better than most rule-based technologies, I hope to also make clear that in the age of IBM’s Watson, Google’s Brain, and the semantic web, production rule technology is inadequate.<\/p>\n

They are not created equal.<\/h3>\n

Rules have become so pervasive in the software business that vendors of all types of software say they have them.\u00a0 Consider, for example, that even Microsoft Outlook has rules!<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, people generally don’t appreciate the differences between different types of rules.\u00a0 This makes it an uphill battle for someone delivering more value than another who has the most rudimentary functionality.\u00a0 IBM’s Operational Decision Manager (formerly Ilog JRules) and Fair Isaac’s Blaze Advisor are excellent business rules management systems (BRMS) based on production rule technology.\u00a0 And yet, their sales reps have to deal repeatedly with prospective clients who think products from Microsoft or Progress are effective competitors.<\/p>\n

Since the nineties, most of the rule-based capabilities added to software of all types is nothing more than glorified if-then-else statements found in every major programming language.\u00a0 Even some self-described rule-based technology vendors offer little more from a technology perspective.\u00a0 For example, Bosch Innovation’s Visual Modeler<\/a> looks like a visual programming language in which you draw if-then-else statements.\u00a0 Now visual programming may be a nice and useful capability, but the benefits of artificial intelligence technology hardly accrue from dressing up a procedural\u00a0 language!<\/p>\n

Bells and Whistles<\/h3>\n

There have been some nifty innovations in user interfaces to make coding business logic easier.\u00a0 The most significant has been the development of less technical rule languages that look something like English.\u00a0 My former company led that charge but the products from IBM, Fair Isaac, and Oracle are very nice even if they still require an analyst to translate from English into a structured syntax or controlled natural language.<\/p>\n

Another significant metaphor was championed by Corticon, now owned by Progress.\u00a0 Their tabular metaphor cannot handle many of the rules that come up in practice, but for those willing to limit their focus and functionality to what does fit in the metaphor, it is very nice in several regards.\u00a0 So nice, in fact, that rather than sell against it, all the vendors, including my former company, introduced their own tabular metaphors.<\/p>\n

The march from technical rule syntax to increasingly natural language business rules increased the market for production rule technology dramatically beginning with Haley Systems’ Authority circa 2000.\u00a0 The tabular metaphor was a flash in the pan by comparison.\u00a0 Neither advanced the underlying technology, however.\u00a0 In fact, as mentioned above, the tabular metaphor reduced its expressiveness and power.\u00a0 Nonetheless, the tabular metaphor allowed some people to begin using business rules technology who might not otherwise have adopted it as quickly.<\/p>\n

Basic questions…<\/h3>\n

How many people understand that IBM, Fair Isaac, and Oracle are essentially equivalent in their rule technology?\u00a0 How many people understand that each of these is vastly superior in capability to Microsoft, Progress or Visual Rules?<\/p>\n

Even more importantly, how many people understand how weak each of IBM, Fair Isaac, Oracle, SAP, TIBCO, and Red Hat are in their ability to perform logical deduction?\u00a0\u00a0 And how many understand the ramifications of weak deductive capabilities?<\/p>\n

Who needs deduction?<\/h3>\n

One of my early frustrations with production rule technology was its inability to perform deduction.\u00a0 A simple example may help you see this:<\/p>\n