February 5, 2010
I am often asked to describe the rule engines that Microsoft ships. (The first question being: “Microsoft has rule engines?”) This question frequently comes from folks who know rules, but don’t know .NET. This post is specifically written to answer the question. Should the offerings change in the future, I will update this post as needed.
As always, this is not an official Microsoft statement. Questions about the future directions for these products should be directed to Microsoft.
As of this writing, Microsoft is currently shipping two rule engines. They are aimed at somewhat different audiences as described below.
MS BRE
The first rule engine is called the Microsoft Business Rule Engine (sometimes called “MS BRE” or “BRE”) and it has shipped as part of BizTalk Server since early 2004. BRE has shipped in BizTalk Server 2004, BizTalk Server 2006, BizTalk Server 2006 R2, BizTalk Server 2009 and I’m sure it will be included in the upcoming BizTalk Server 2009 R2.
WF Rules
The second rule engine is part of Windows Workflow Foundation in .NET, it is the Windows Workflow Foundation Rules Engine (sometimes called “Workflow Rules” or “WF Rules”). The WF rule engine originally shipped in late 2006 as part of .NET 3.0. It was also included in .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0. If you are running Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Vista or have installed .NET 3.0 or higher – you already have the WF rule engine on your computer. Update: I have an additional post specifically about rules in WF4.
Comparing MS BRE & WF Rules
Here are some comparisons of these engines written by other folks. Charles Young has written extensively on this topic.
A Short Summary Of Differences For Those Who Know Rules
If you asked me to summarize differences for a rules specialist, my comments would be along the following lines:
- MS BRE is part of a BizTalk Server, which is a business-oriented server package, while WF Rules is part of the free .NET Framework which is more developer-oriented. (MS BRE may be used standalone outside of BizTalk, but is only licensed with BizTalk.) Both engines provide forward chaining execution. WF Rules also provides the option for sequential execution.
- MS BRE rules are typically authored in the Rules Composer, while WF Rules are typically authored in Visual Studio. There are partners that provide a more BRMS-like authoring environment. MS BRE has features such as vocabularies and a respository, and is therefore closer to what Gartner defines as a BRMS.
- MS BRE implements the Rete algorithm, while WF Rules does not. MS BRE uses eager evaluation, while WF Rules uses lazy evaluation. The performance profiles are accordingly different – WF “first hit” execution being faster, for example.
- WF does not have assert/retract keywords or a Working Memory, while MS BRE does – so WF Rules requires all objects to be reachable from a common root object (this). (In WF Rules, support for multiple instances is achieved through forward chaining.) WF Rules supports “Else”, while MS BRE does not. MS BRE has some known restrictions around negation-as-failure. MS BRE has special handling for XML and DB fact types.
Related Technology
I would be remiss if I did not mention some Microsoft offerings that apply to related areas:
Lastly, I should also point out that the Mono Project is reimplementing Windows Workflow Foundation – including WF Rules.
2 Comments | 
.NET, AI, Microsoft, rules | Tagged: .NET, AI, BizTalk, BizTalk BRE, BizTalk Server, BRMS, Charles Young, expert systems, forward chaining, Microsoft, Microsoft Solver Foundation, Mono, Mono Project, MS BRE, negation-as-failure, rete algorithm, rule engine, rules, StreamInsight, the cult of rete, WF, WF Rules, Windows Workflow Foundation | 
Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
February 3, 2010
Cheers to James Owen for his stewardship of the October Rules Fest for 2008 and 2009. I was only able to attend a small portion of the 2009 conference, but those portions were quite good. The sign of a healthy conference is one where attendees return as presenters and this year had a few such presentations (Andrew! David!). It was great to see everyone again, but I missed a few folks who were unable to return.
I think my previously posted comments from last year are largely still applicable:
Since James is now returning to working for a vendor, October Rules Fest will now be organized by Jason Morris. The conference is in good hands – Jason is an excellent choice. Make your wishes for ORF 2010 known now.
No Comments » | AI, rules | Tagged: AI, expert systems, October Rules Fest, ORF, rule engine, rules | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
February 3, 2010
The article is a bit old now (June 2009), but Wired had an interesting interview with Vivek Kundra about Data.gov. This is the usual Web 2.0 pitch about making data transparent and available and hoping that crowdsourcing will magically create useful things.
I will however admit to having been intrigued by the concept of one of the apps mentioned in the article:
In DC, someone combined several of the data sets released by local government—maps, liquor license info, crime statistics—into an app called Stumble Safely, which shows users the safest way to walk home when drunk.
Now someone just needs to mash it up with some augmented reality software or turn-by-turn GPS directions (“Turn left at the next corner. Stagger 2 blocks east. Try not to walk into that telephone pole.”).
Also of interest is DataMasher, which I spotted on LifeHacker. It appears to be a site for mashing up various government data sources. You can also save your own mashup and make it available to others. Looks interesting. So far, the Highest Rated and Most Discussed mashups seem to focus on health, mortality, guns, alcohol, obesity, and reproduction.
Finally, if you’ve read Freakonomics, check out this article on “bad boy” baby names as a predictor of behavior.
No Comments » | datamining, games, video games | Tagged: baby names, crowdsourcing, data, datamining, Freakonomics, government, mashup, Web 2.0 | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
February 3, 2010
The rise of the online always-on videogame opens a new world of stat tracking. The recent changes is this area are well beyond simple high score boards or achievements/trophies. For example, consider the article “You Are Being Watched” from a recent issue of the Official Xbox Magazine. The article details the datamining that Bungie is doing for Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST, that Criterion is doing for Burnout Paradise, and Valve is doing for Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead.
All of these companies are gathering data that shows them how their games are really being played. One usage for this data is to potentially make improvements and bug fixes. In the case of Bungie, players can actually log onto bungie.net and see their own stats and own personal heat maps for the matches they have played. Valve shares some of the overall data, and has recently started adding personalized data (for Steam players only).
For the personalized data, it would be interesting to see some numbers for how many players actually review their stats and whether it has an impact on their playing.
See also:
While I’m clearing out the videogame datamining links…
No Comments » | datamining, games, video games | Tagged: Bungie, Burnout, Burnout Paradise, Counter-Strike, Criterion Games, datamining, games, Halo, Halo 3, Halo 3: OSDT, Left 4 Dead, Microsoft, neural network, Neuroph, Nintendo, Steam, Team Fortress 2, Valve Corporation, videogames, Wii, Xbox, Xbox Live | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
January 31, 2010
Scientific American’s online edition has an article touching on the study I previously blogged in which videogames were observed to improve vision. The article is a nice contrast to much of the game journalism coverage of the research, and gives me an opportunity to briefly revisit this topic.
Obviously, we know that games can teach information or hone motor skills – but there isn’t a lot of research around games and brain plasticity.
This article has a nice point calling out the lack of good research in this area (I’m looking at you, Brain Age.):
To date, much of the claims around this rapidly growing area of technology-supported medical interventions are insufficiently supported by scientific data.
(I have since found a study examining the effect of videogames upon memory and thinking skills in the elderly – using Boom Blox.)
Out of a number of online mentions of this research that I have seen, this article comes closest to referencing Steven Johnson‘s book “Everything Bad Is Good For You”. Perhaps I have just missed the articles that make the logical connection.
It also amuses me to see a study showing that playing Call Of Duty 2 or Unreal Tournament 2004 is in any measurable sense “better” than playing The Sims 2.
In other news, it seems that Dr. Richard Haier is still researching with Tetris. Dr. Haier did some of the original brain research with Tetris back in 1992 (two publications: one in Intelligence, another in Brain Research). In 2009, Dr. Haier did some new research involving Tetris while acting as a consultant to Blue Planet Software. MSNBC has a brief interview with Dr. Haier. Wired has another writeup on the research. (I would be remiss if I didn’t include a link to a certain someone declaring themselves as a Gameboy Tetris purist: “Tetris on the Gameboy…only.”)
I’ll close with another link I had lying around: scientists studying mice brains by using Quake 2.
Update, March 2010: Another bit of research on Tetris and PTSD.
No Comments » | brain science, games, video games | Tagged: Blue Planet Software, Boom Blox, brain, Brain Age, brain science, Call of Duty 2, Dallas Gaming Mafia, Dr. Richard Haier, Everything Bad Is Good For You, Gameboy, games, id Software, Nintendo, Oregon Trail, PTSD, Quake 2, Solitaire, Steve Wozniak, Steven Berlin Johnson, Steven Johnson, Tetris, The Sims 2, This Is Your Brain On Tetris, This Is Your Brain On Videogames, Unreal Tournament 2004, video games, Woz | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
January 31, 2010
A nice aside in Steven Johnson’s recent review of the new Kindle:
6. No page numbers! They have “location” numbers instead, because pages don’t really exist in the Kindle, given that you can resize the type with two quick taps on the keyboard. There’s a small question here about how you cite a passage from a Kindle e-book, but I think it begs a larger, and more interesting question about standardizing page references in all e-books — including Google Books for instance. (I’m going to write a longer piece on this…)
This isn’t really a new problem – anyone who has used a text from Project Gutenberg has run into this issue (try citing a passage from Heart of Darkness, for example). However, the difficulty may become more prevalent as devices such as the Kindle become more common. Of course, electronic books also present difficulties when it comes to marginalia (the most notable marginalia is probably that of Fermat).
There are some general difficulties here with electronic text and it will be interesting to see how they can be solved in effective, portable ways.
No Comments » | books | Tagged: Amazon Kindle, Amazon.com, books, Colonel Kurtz, Fermat's Last Theorem, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad, Kindle, marginalia, page numbers, Steven Berlin Johnson, Steven Johnson | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
January 30, 2010
It is becoming increasing clear that we don’t lie to search engines. As the AOL search data scandal revealed, you can give away your identity simply through egosurfing.
People ask all sorts of questions to search engines. And the autocomplete features recently added to the search boxes at Google and Bing are quite revealing about what things people are searching for. This is most readily pointed out with two recent articles at Slate. The first article has a number of interesting examples of what people are typing into the Google search box, and calls for submissions from readers. It’s the second article that is the most interesting – consider the difference in suggestions that Google provides based upon your grammar – the difference in suggestions for “is it wrong to” compared with “is it ethical to” is quite interesting.
Which brings us to the outing of anonymous blogger Belle de Jour. It is not especially surprising that her identity was figured out from her online writings. What is interesting is that someone figured out her identity, kept it secret, and used a Googlewhack in order to spot when others began to suspect her identity around six years later.
Update Feb 23, ’10: See also AutoComplete Me for more Google examples.
No Comments » | datamining | Tagged: datamining, egosurfing, googlewhack, search engine | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
January 30, 2010
One subject of interest to me is dead media. Plenty of others have written about the changes in how we consume and purchase music. I’ll simply link to some interesting read on the topic:
Lastly, when did redbox start offering used DVDs in their vending machines and has it had a noticeable impact on the used dvd market?
No Comments » | Dead Media | Tagged: CD, Dead Media, DVD, LP, mp3, redbox, songlifting, vinyl | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
January 30, 2010
Spotted on waxy.org and GameSetWatch, links to some interesting visualizations of Choose Your Own Adventure and other gamebooks:
One of the interesting outcomes of these exercises, is that the books end up being debugged (see the Corrections section at Outspaced) and that at least one Easter Egg was found (see the end of Swinehart’s page).
No Comments » | infographics | Tagged: infographics, visualization | Permalink
Posted by Karl W. Reinsch
