Rule Table Bug - legends & Conclusions

Similar Questions

• Unable to get the correct rules table result when the State is unknown

  Hi all

  I use OPA version 10.4. I'm writing a rule by using a table of rules. Requirement is such that when the State is unknown then conclusion should evaluate to 'Others' (for example). Now, I have a condition (text) attribute and attribute of conclusion (text). Now when the condition attribute value is "abc" then attribute of the conclusion must be "xyz" but when the condition attribute is 'unknown' or anything else then attribute conclusion must be 'other '. I tried to implement this in the two table rules in word doc and also in excel table of rule but failed to get the desired result. It assesses the 'unknown' conclusion when the condition attribute is 'unknown '. Please suggest.

  Thank you

  Mounia

  

  

  Hi Pascal,.

  As the table of treaty rules the rules in the top-down approach, so the 'unknown' State should be written before the value condition.

  If she meets the condition of value firstly she neglects the unknown state and gives the value of the conclusion as 'unknown '.

  Hi Sean,.

  Want your comments on that.

  See you soon,.

  Arup

• Name of the table (Bug or feature)?

  Hello

  I have a table named containers. I would like to increase the abscissa, if the name does not appear in the

  table. To do this, I use PropertyObject members.

  This works well if you use strings without 2 or more "------" (backslash).

  

  So what is the reason.

  I used. T4.5 and 4.2

  Concerning

  Jürgen

  The backslashes to escape apply only to string literals in expressions. In all other cases they are not. If you take a string also and try to convert it into a literal string to an expression, you must escape (i.e. all backslashes must be preceded by an another backslash, and all quotes must be preceded by a backslash, and potentially carriage returns and line breaks and tabs must also be escaped). In addition, there is a function in the engine that will do this for you, Engine.Utility.Escape ().

  Hope this helps to clear things up,

  -Doug

• Oracle Business Rule - Table of decision for loop

  Hi Experts,

  I have the scenario where I get the list of values, and I don't have to iterate over the values in the decision table. I can't use the normal return If so , in reason of the restriction of customer "only use table decision." Can someone guide me how to use the for loop in the decision table?

  Thank you

  We can check multiple values of the same element in the decision table. so no need to make a loop.

• Table of business rules

  Does anyone know where the Planning v.9.3 management rules are stored in the database. I am looking on the repository tables, but cannot find the rule table. It seems that even if they are not stored there... is it true?

  They are not stored in the planning, they are part of the Regional service and will be in the tables in RDBMS EAS.

  See you soon

  John
  http://John-Goodwin.blogspot.com/

• the value of the Boolean attribute to "uncertain" by a rule in Word

  I need to infer a Boolean attribute, but one of the results should be "uncertain". (This is not a business like approach rule, but a technical rule. I am aware of that).

  the following table of the decision, that's what I'm looking for to be implemented:

  Boolean has	Boolean B	the presumed Boolean C
  true	true	uncertain
  true	fake	uncertain
  true	uncertain	uncertain
  fake	true	true
  fake	fake	fake
  fake	uncertain	uncertain
  uncertain	true	uncertain
  uncertain	fake	uncertain
  uncertain	uncertain	uncertain

  I know that this can be done using Excel, but I need to do in Word. Is this possible?

  Yes, you can do this word, but it's a little different.

  You can use uncertain and unknown in the row of conclusion.

  With a Word rules table, you can deduct only one attribute, Excel tables have the advantage of being able to deduct several attributes for each line. Also, each line of conclusion when it comes more than one variable will need to be built with one 'and' instead of several lines. Thus, for example:

  The Boolean infers c
  uncertain	Boolean is true, and B Boolean is set to true

• question of the rule

  I'm working on a calculation that involved referencing a table of rules, the original material request now that we choose the number the higher of the two different tables and that apply to the calculation
  
  the exact wording is:
  
  the greater of:
  the amount specified in table 1 or
  the amount indicated in table 2
  
  It sounds pretty simple, but we try to think of a good way to do it, can anyone help?
  
  Published by: utilisateur36 on April 27, 2012 07:00

  Describe your rule of calculation using a single attribute. For example, total = the first number + highest possible second numbers, there where "the highest possible second numbers" is an attribute. Use a table of rules to determine "highest possible second numbers" of "table 1" and "the value of table 2" using a comparison to determine which is faster. " For simplicity, Z = X if X > Y and Z = there may otherwise appear in a table as follows:
  _ ___Condition (X) | _ Conclusion (Z)
  _______ > Y _______| _____ X ______
  _ _ otherwise. _____ Y _______

  With this approach, determine you separately "the largest...» «According to what logic is necessary and you are using a single fixed value "the largest...» "in your formula regardless of how it was determined." This approach also makes it easier to maintain the rules because the formula and the logic that dictates what factors to be used in a formula are in separate rules/tables. (which also leads to a more meaningful decision / verification of reports required)

• Force evaluation of the rules for the non-existent entities and unknown attributes...

  Hi all
  
  I have another issue potentially easy for the gurus of the OPA in this forum - there must be a simple explanation to this question but I'm just not see it.
  
  The problem that I am having with several of my rules, it's that the conclusion is not evaluated due to the non-existent entity instances or unknown entity attributes. As an example of the first scenario, I have a rule that checks for the existence of an instance of an entity with a type and status. The conclusion is evaluated as if there is at least an instance of this entity, otherwise, the conclusion remains unknown.
  
  Similarly, I wrote an equation to annualize all its (financial) obligations in a case, where the frequency of the obligation can be weekly, fortnightly, monthly, etc.. I created an attribute for each type of frequency, which are then added to the equation. The issue in this example, is that the equation does not conclude if there is not a value for each attribute in the equation. For example, if:
  
  assign 1 = A + B + C
  
  where A = 1, B = 2 and C is unknown, does not examine the attribute from 1 to 3, but will remain unknown. Logically, I expect that the lack of a digital defaults to 0, and rather unknown attribute value, but this is not the case.
  
  I looked at the 'Certain and known operator rule examples' help topic to try to understand how assign a value to an unknown attribute, but the example at the bottom of the topic page does not provide a sufficient explanation as to how the logic:
  
  point of the total team = team 1 round points + points of the round 2 team + team of turn 3 points
  
  the team of the round 1 points = 0 if
  Round 1 team points (such as recorded by the team) is unknown
  
  the team from round 2 points = 0 if
  etc.
  
  It seems from the example that there are 2 attributes used to the same variable: [team of the Tower, 1 points] and [team of the round 1 points (such as recorded by the team)]. It is not clear to me how the original equation can be concluded if the values are stored in the alternate attribute [points of the round 1 team (such as recorded by the team)] etc.
  
  I have also considered using fragments of rule by the help topic "Prove an attribute using multiple rules", while I could use two equations separated to set the value of an attribute according to the circumstances, that is to say:
  
  assign 1 = A + B + C
  
  1 = 0 if attribute
  attribute 1 is unknown
  
  This attempt results in a logic loop error, probably because I am trying to set the value of an attribute based on the same attribute value.
  
  Any help will be greatly appreciated!
  Philippe

  Hi Philippe,.

  I suggest the following way to solve this problem, although there are other ways too.
  You can use a table of rules for it.

  Open a Working Document, and then press 'Alt + Z' created a rules table.

  Use the following rule: -.
  Keep the text in bold in the left-hand column and the text in italics as a condition for the title in the right column. Use a correct indentation during the compilation of the rules.

  -------------------------------------------
  Attribute 1
  -------------------------------------------
  *0*     any
  A is unknown or

  Uncertain East
  and
  any
  B is unknown or
  B is uncertain
  and
  any
  C is unknown or
  C is uncertain
  ----------------------------------------------
  Has any     
  B is unknown or
  B is uncertain
  and
  any
  C is unknown or
  C is uncertain
  ----------------------------------------------
  A + B C is unknown or     
  C is uncertain
  -----------------------------------------------
  A+B+C in the opposite case     

  Thank you
  Sofiane

• Diff b/w decision Table created and Word and Excel?

  Hello
  
  I am curious to know the difference b/w, a decision created in MS Word table and created in MS Excel? Please let me know the considerations in choosing one against the other. I know that some related information is already present on the Webhelp OPM but you would be grateful if anyone can clear it lay off for me.
  
  Best regards
  CC

  Here are the thoughts that go into my head when I choose between a table of rules in Word and a rules table in Excel:

  * If it's a relatively simple logic that can perfectly be expressed in a Word table, I have an appointment with the word. I find the Word easier to work with, and so I use it unless there is a good reason otherwise.

  * A major difference between the tables of Word and Excel, is that you can have several conclusions in an Excel table (with several columns of the conclusion of a table), whereas with Word tables you can have a conclusion by table. If my logic is such that I want to have several conclusions based on the same conditions, so I usually go with Excel.

  * I would look to the source for guidance material as well. If the material is expressed as a table (especially if the table is too complex for an array of Word), then I would tend to go with Excel.

  * If the logic can be expressed more concisely in an Excel table, then I would usually choose Excel. For example, if he would take the 2 pages of rules of Word to express the logic, as opposed to a concise 1 / / 2 screen Excel table, then I would probably choose Excel.

  See you soon,.
  Jasmine

• Strange behavior with Report Generation Toolkit. Table does not table.

  We use a Word 2003 (.doc) document as a template for a summary of the report.  It works fine on the development PC.  It fills the fields in the document and fills the chart correctly, as shown in the picture below.

  

  However, he cannot even on another station.  Although the 2D table is identical and so is the software to investigate the matter, the table does not get filled correctly.  I studied using Word 2010 (.docx) as a model, with the same results.

  I was not able to understand what is different between stations 2 and why it does not work on the 2nd station.  I googled similar questions on the Web site of NOR and was only this article in the knowledge base concerning the new lines in the cell, which is not my case.

  That's what I have on the 2nd machine:

  

  The table that is sent to the table contains the appropriate data :

  

  I just found out this is a known bug, which obviously has not yet been resolved (finally... at least until LV2012SP1).

  See these threads:

  http://forums.NI.com/T5/LabVIEW/problem-with-append-table-and-Word-2010/TD-p/1268246

  and

  http://forums.NI.com/T5/LabVIEW/report-generation-MS-Word-table-bug/m-p/1605170

  I'll try the workarounds suggested and report back...

• Load data into a table

  Hi friends,

  I'm trying to load records into the rules of the product table of the table with the following...

  create table product)

  prod_id varchar2 (20).

  prod_grp varchar2 (20).

  from_amt number (10),

  to_amt number (10),

  share_amt number (10)

  );

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, share_amt) Values ('10037', "STK", 1, 18);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, share_amt) Values ('10037', "NSTK", 1: 16.2);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, to_amt, share_amt) Values ('10038', "NSTK", 1, 5000, 12);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, to_amt, share_amt) Values ('10038', "STK", 5001, 10000, 16);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, share_amt) Values ('10038', "STK", 10001, 20);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, to_amt, share_amt) Values ('10039', "NSTK", 1, 8000, 10);

  Insert into product (prod_id, prod_grp, from_amt, share_amt) Values ('10039', "STK", 8001, 12);

  create table rules)

  rule_id varchar2 (30),

  rule_grp varchar2 (10),

  rate_1 number (10),

  point_1 number (10),

  rate_2 number (10),

  point_2 number (10),

  rate_3 number (10),

  point_3 number (10)

  );

  Criteria of loading in the rules of the table:

  rule_id - "RL" | Product.prod_id

  rule_grp - product.prod_grp

  rate_1 - product.share_amt where from_amt = 1

  point_1 - product.to_amt

  rate_2 - if product.to_amt in point_1 is not NULL, then find product.share_amt of the next record with the same rule_id/prod_id where from_amt (of the next record) = to_amt (current record -

  point_1) + 1

  point_2 - if product.to_amt in point_1 is not NULL, then find product.to_amt of the next record with the same rule_id/prod_id where from_amt (of the next record) = to_amt (current record - )

  point_1) + 1

  rate_3 - if product.to_amt in point_2 is not NULL, then find product.share_amt of the next record with the same rule_id/prod_id where from_amt (of the next record) = to_amt(current )

  Enregistrement-point_2) + 1

  point_3 - if product.to_amt in point_2 is not NULL, then find product.to_amt of the next record with the same rule_id/prod_id where from_amt (of the next record) = to_amt (current record - )

  point_2) + 1

  I tried to load the first columns (rule_id, rule_grp, rate_1, point_1, rate_2, point_2) via the sql loader.

  SQL > select * from product;

  PROD_ID PROD_GRP FROM_AMT TO_AMT SHARE_AMT

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

  10037                STK                           1                    18

  10037                NSTK                          1                    16

  1 5000 12 NSTK 10038

  10038 5001-10000-16 STK.

  10038 10001 20 STK.

  10039 1 8000 10 NSTK

  10039                STK                        8001                    12

  produit.dat

  PROD_ID | PROD_GRP | FROM_AMT | TO_AMT | SHARE_AMT

  "10037' |'. STK' | 1. 18

  "10037' |'. NSTK' | 1. 16.2

  '10038' |' NSTK' | 1. 5000 | 12

  '10038' |' STK' | 5001 | 10000 | 16

  '10038' |' STK' | 10001 | 20

  "10039' |'. NSTK' | 1. 8000 | 10

  "10039' |'. STK' | 8001 | 12

  Product.CTL

  options (Skip = 1)

  load data

  in the table rules

  fields ended by ' |'

  surrounded of possibly ' '.

  trailing nullcols

  (rule_id POSITION (1) ""RL"|: rule_id")

  rule_grp

  from_amt BOUNDFILLER

  point_1

  share_amt BOUNDFILLER

  , rate_1 ' BOX WHEN: from_amt = 1 THEN: share_amt END.

  , rate_2 expression "(sélectionnez pr.share_amt de produit pr où: point_1 n'est pas null et pr.prod_id=:rule_id et: point_1 =: from_amt + 1)" "

  , expression point_2 "(sélectionnez pr.to_amt de produit pr où: point_1 n'est pas null et pr.prod_id=:rule_id et: point_1 =: from_amt + 1)" "

  )

  He has not any support only values in rate_2, point_2... no error either... Not sure if there is another method to do this...

  Please give your suggestions... Thank you very much for your time

  Hello

  Thanks for posting the CREATE TABLE and INSERT instructions for the sample data; It's very useful!

  Don't forget to post the exact results you want from this data in the sample, i.e. what you want the rule table to contain once the task is completed.

  As ground has said, there is no interest to use SQLLDR to copy data from one table to another in the same database.  Use INSERT, or perhaps MERGE.

  2817195 wrote:

  Thank you for your answers... I thought it would be easier to manipulate the data using sql loader... I tried to use insert but do not know how to insert values in point_2, rate_3, rate_2, point_3, columns... For example, when point_1 is not null, need to do a find for the next with the same rule_id record and if the inserted record = pr.from_amt + 1 point_1 then RATE_2 should be inserted with this pr.share_amt of this record...

  SQL > insert into the rules)

  2 rule_id,

  rule_grp 3,.

  rate_1 4,.

  point_1 5,.

  rate_2 6,.

  point_2 7,.

  rate_3 8,.

  9 point_3)

  10. Select

  11 'RL ' | PR.prod_id RULE_ID,

  12 pr.prod_grp RULE_GRP,

  13 CASES WHEN END of pr.from_amt = 1 THEN pr.share_amt RATE_1,

  14 pr.to_amt POINT_1,

  15 (select pr.share_amt from product pr where point_1 is not null and rules.rule_id = pr.prod_id and point_1 = pr.from_amt + 1) RATE_2,

  16 (select pr.to_amt from product pr where point_1 is not null and rules.rule_id = pr.prod_id and = pr.from_amt + 1 point_1) POINT_2,.

  17 (select pr.share_amt from product pr where point_2 is not null and rules.rule_id = pr.prod_id and = pr.from_amt + 1 point_2) RATE_3,.

  18 (select pr.to_amt from product pr where point_2 is not null and rules.rule_id = pr.prod_id and = pr.from_amt + 1 point_2) POINT_3

  19 product pr;

  (select pr.share_amt from product pr where point_1 is not null and point_1 = pr.from_amt + 1) RATE_2,

  *

  ERROR on line 15:

  ORA-00904: "POINT_1": invalid identifier

  Help, please... Thank you very much

  This is what causes the error:

  The subquery on line 15 references only 1 table in the FROM clause, and this table is produced.  There is no point_1 column in the product.

  A scalar subquery like this can be correlated to a table in the Super request, but the only table in the FROM (line 19) clause is also produced.  Since the only table that you read is produced, only columns that you can read are the columns of the product table.

  You use the same table alias (pr) to mean different things 5. It's very confusing.  Create aliases for single table in any SQL statement.  (What you trying to do, I bet you can do without all these subqueries, in any case.)

• Several namespaces in the document of a rule

  I'm a newbie using the OPA, to write rules for the first time. I see that I can use the "entity"s as a namespace for my attributes." I created two namespaces (entities): "Vehicle" and 'Speed up the rules'.

  The rules Table (marked italic) fails with the validation of message "" Vehicle"is not available here. You must use the function of the entity to designate the "vehicle category" ' if I change the namespace of the maximum road speed [km/h] rules of speeding to the vehicle, validation passes. How I use multiple namespaces?

  Thank you

  George

  Speeding rules Max road speed [km/h]

  120 vehicles of category = 'B' or

  Vehicle category = "A".

  80 vehicles of the class = "C".

  Otherwise 100

  Vehicle category = 'B', if

  Vehicle wheels = 4 and

  Vehicle weight [kg] < 3500

  Vehicle category = 'A' If

  Wheels = 2

  Vehicle category = 'C' If

  Vehicle wheels = 4 and

  Weight [kg] > = 3500

  Maybe I can help some too.

  Support in the first table on rules of speeding, it's that there is only one vehicle, Correct?  If so, then change the relationship between Global and vehicle a "one-to-one" rather than "a lot" and it will compile.  Problem solved.  This relationship is probably called "all the instances of the vehicle."

  Unfortunately, you may miss some nuances related to entities and word tables.  The nuance is why OPA is complaining about your rules.  OPA does not know the rules 'who' vehicle to the Basic acceleration on.  OPA has assumed that there could be a lot of vehicles on the road.  My tip above simply removed the ambiguity, allowing only a single vehicle.  So, OPA was actually somewhat intelligent.  If you want a lot of vehicles, then we must discuss the relationship between the rules of speeding and vehicles with a little more clarity.

  I also recommend to vehicle category rules in a word table.  Thus, there is nuance here, but you will usually find more sensible things if Boolean values are put into word or excellent tables.  Anything that can hold an "else" clause can be a good candidate for a table.

  Finally, if you need only one of something, then as a "general rule" (which I constantly violates myself to model clarity), you probably don't have an entity...

• can we use service legend to dynamically call business service in OSB

  My requirement is: contact service issue. moments of for - each loop in OSB. Node road that we cannot use in the foreach loop.

  can we use service legend to call business several times? and how can we pass endpoint url to business service using the legend of service.

  Please help me.

  Yes you can use routing options to override the legend service endpoint url. See

  http://docs.Oracle.com/CD/E23943_01/admin.1111/e15867/proxy_actions.htm#i1315299

  The action of routing Options can be used when the context variable $outbound is valid. It can be added to the following actions:

  • Publish
  • Dynamic publishing
  • Publish the Table
  • Legend of service
  • Routing
  • Dynamic routing
  • Routing table

• Table alignment problem

  I have a table of format of CLIENT access licenses that I can't get alignment to work properly.  I have the attributes of the table defined and managed in the R/W rules file (shown below).  I have the code in the EDD to watch the TGROUP label align attribute and apply an initial table format suitable for the attribute (also shown below).  There are 3 conditions of test for the left/Center and right attribute values, then another on the off chance that the attribute is not specified.  The system always selects the condition ELSE regardless of the value of the align attribute.  I tried different case on the value of the attribute, and I tried different quotes on in ESD around the value of the attribute.  Nothing works.  It seems that it should be simple.  No idea what I am doing wrong?

  Thanks for any help...

  Jim

  RULES OF R/W

  / * Rule Container table * /.
  {"table" element
  is part of fm;

  / * Table of the subrules * /.
  the 'ttabstyle' attribute is fm properties table format;
  attribute 'frame '.
  {
  to pronounce fm table property border;
  the 'ALL' value is property of the fm in value;
  the 'TOPBOT' value is fm upper and lower value property;
  'TOP' value is property value top fm;
  'BOTTOM' value is fm property value background;
  value 'COAST' is fm property value ratings;
  the 'NONE' value is fm property set to none.
  }
  attribute "colsep" is fm property column judgment;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  attribute 'East' is the attribute of fm;
  attribute 'pgwide' is the wide fm property page;
  }

  / * Rules table Group, array element is container object * /.
  {"tgroup" element
  is fm of table element;

  / * Rules for attribute * /.
  attribute "collar" is fm property columns;
  attribute "colsep" is fm property column judgment;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  "align" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  "charoff" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  "tank" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  }

  / * ColSpec treatment * /.
  {"colspec" element
  is fm colspec;
  attribute 'colnum' is the column number of property fm;
  attribute 'column name' is the name of the property column fm;
  "align" attribute is the type of fm property cell alignment;
  the attribute "charoff" is the alignment of the cell of the property compensation fm;
  attribute 'tank' is fm cell alignment character property.
  attribute 'colwidth' is the width of column fm property;
  attribute "colsep" is fm property column judgment;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  }

  / * SpanSpec treatment * /.
  {'spanspec"element
  is fm spanspec;
  attribute 'spanname' is fm property name span.
  attribute 'namest' is fm start column name property;
  "nameend" attribute is the name of the end property of fm column;
  "align" attribute is the type of fm property cell alignment;
  the attribute "charoff" is the alignment of the cell of the property compensation fm;
  attribute 'tank' is fm cell alignment character property.
  attribute "colsep" is fm property column judgment;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  }

  / * Table of rules of the head * /.
  element 'thead' {}
  is the fm table header element;
  'valign' attribute is the attribute of fm;
  }

  / * Rules of table footer * /.
  element 'tfoot' {}
  is the element of fm table leg;
  'valign' attribute is the attribute of fm;
  }

  / * Table of the rules of the body * /.
  element 'tbody' {}
  is the fm table body element;
  'valign' attribute is the attribute of fm;
  }

  / * Rank rules * /.
  {'line' element
  is the fm table row element;
  'valign' attribute is the attribute of fm;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  }

  / * Entry rules * /.
  {"section" element
  is fm table cell element.
  attribute 'column name' is the name of the property column fm;
  attribute 'namest' is fm start column name property;
  "nameend" attribute is the name of the end property of fm column;
  attribute 'spanname' is fm property name span.
  attribute "morerows" is property of fm more lines;
  attribute "colsep" is fm property column judgment;
  'rowsep' attribute is fm row property judgment;
  "rotation" attribute is the property of fm turn;
  'valign' attribute is the attribute of fm;
  "align" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  "charoff" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  "tank" attribute is the attribute of fm;
  / * "align" attribute is the alignment fm property type cell;
  the attribute "charoff" is the alignment of the cell of the property compensation fm;
  attribute 'tank' is fm cell alignment character property. * /
  }

  Tgroup ESD definition

  Element (table): tgroup
  General rule: thead?, tbody, tfoot?
  List of attributes
  Name: align the optional choices
  Choice: left | good | Center | justify | char
  Name: charoff Optional String
  Default: 50
  Name: char String
  Original table format
  If the context is: [align = "left"]
  Table format: Table w / left in power
  Otherwise, if the context is: [align = 'center']
  Table format: Table w/o decision Center
  Otherwise, if the context is: [align = 'right']
  Table format: Table w / right of decision
  On the other
  Table format: Table w/decision Ctr

  Table tag:

  < framework table = 'NONE' colsep = "1" rowsep = "0" >
  < tgroup cols = '2' colsep = "1" rowsep = "0" align = 'left' charoff = "50" char = "" >
  < colspec colnum = colname '1' = '1' colwidth = in "2,000" / >
  < colspec colnum = colname '2' = '2' colwidth = in "2,000" / >
  < tbody valign = "top" >
  < line rowsep = "1" >
  < input column name = '1' colsep = "0" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  MD80 < para > < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < input column name = "2" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  918/292-3080 < para > < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < / row >
  < line rowsep = "1" >
  < input column name = '1' colsep = "0" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  < para >
  < revst / > 737 < resells / >
  < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < input column name = "2" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  918/292-3737 < para > / 3757 < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < / row >
  < line rowsep = "1" >
  < input column name = '1' colsep = "0" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  < para >
  < revst / > A300 < resells / >
  < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < input column name = "2" rowsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  918/292-3300 < para > < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < / row >
  < line rowsep = "0" >
  < input column name = '1' colsep = "0" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  < para >
  < revst / > 767/777 < resells / >
  < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < input column name = "2" valign = "top" morerows = '0' turn '0' = >
  817/224-0767 < para > / 0777 < / para >
  < / Entry >
  < / row >
  < / tbody >
  < / tgroup >
  < /table >

  Jim,

  jim_monaco wrote:

  It's a bit tedious because you have to close the file and reopen it to see the effect of the changing attribute, but I can live with that.

  What file do you need to close and reopen? You use another application to apply the XSLT? You can create a structured FrameMaker application and specify the location of XSLT in the structured application. When you open the XML of the chassis, chassis will apply the XSLT transformation and then open the file as an image file. The tgroupstyle attribute will be visible in the display of the structure if it is defined in the EDD.

  Van

• Restrict the creation of Instances of entity of an entity that is deducted

  Hi all

  I'm working on a script where I cut the engine of the determinations of the creation of instances of an entity that is inferred based on some condition. Explaining the scenario below:

  Entities

  -----------

  Global

  | ___EntityA

                                | ___Entity B

  Here the entity B is contained by entity A and one-to-many relationship.

  Entries of the attribute in entity A, multiple instances get generated in B as I infer the values of all attributes and the relationship in A1.

  Now let's say I have multiple instances of entity A. This will create instances of level B for each instance of entity A. Here's how it should look like:

  [Entity has]

  | Instance ___A #1(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I1 ')

  [Entity B]

  | _B #1 instance (the value of the attribute ID = 'B- I1 ')

  | _B instance #2 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I2" "")

  | _B instance #3 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I3" "")

  | _B instance #4 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I5 ')

  : _B instance #5 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I6 '" ")

  : _An instance #2(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I2 ')

  [Entity B]

  | _B instance #1 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I1 ')

  | _B instance #2 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I3" "")

  : _B instance #3 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I6 '" ")

  : _B instance #4 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I5 ')

  : _An instance #3(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I3 ')

  [Entity B]

  | _B instance #1 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I1 ')

  | _B instance #2 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I4 ')

  | _B instance #3 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I7")

  | _B instance #4 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I8" "")

  | _B instance #5 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I9" "")

  : _B instance #6 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I5 ')

  In the above scenario, each instance of entity B have several attributes and entity A has only 1 attribute. Based on the value entered for the an attribute entity A instances will be generated under the entity B

  what I want to achieve with this scenario is based on the value of the attribute identifier should not be all instances in twice throughout the entire structure. For example, if the value of the Instance of entity B with B- I1 has been generated under the Instance #1(A-I1) of the entity has then it should not create an instance with the same value (B - I1 in this case) in one of the other instances of the entity a. based on the scenario, the structure should look like this:

  [Entity has]

  | Instance ___A #1(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I1 ')

  [Entity B]

  | _B #1 instance (the value of the attribute ID = 'B- I1 ')

  | _B instance #2 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I2" "")

  | _B instance #3 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I3" "")

  | _B instance #4 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I5 ')

  : _B instance #5 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I6 '" ")

  : _An instance #2(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I2 ')

  [Entity B]

  : _B instance #3 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I7")

                                

  : _An instance #3(value of the attribute ID = ' A-I3 ')

  [Entity B]

  : _B instance #2 (value of the attribute ID = 'B- I4 ')

  | _B instance #4 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I8" "")

  | _B instance #5 (value of the attribute ID = "B- I9" "")

  This requirement is type of emergency and guidance on this would be a great help.

  Thanks in advance

  Leila.

  Certainly not the right approach (by using a shortcut rule is almost never correct).  You need a good model and phrasings to make sense of an approach.  You will also need to express declarative "truths" in your rules.  Indicating that which is known to be true is a better approach (for declarative rules) that describe a desired outcome, given some data (procedural programming).

  I suggest you build this simple project first, and then experiment with the conditions of a rule.

  -Create a project

  -Add an entity "parent".

  -Add void entity under the parent named "child".

  -Go to the relationship with the mother (probably default to 'all instances of the child to the parent') - change this wording to "the child of the parent.

  -Open a document in the rule

  -Add a table

  -the conclusion is "the child of the parent.

  -The first column, first row "doors and windows". Firstly the condition (in the same row) ' parent = 'Hotel.

  -The first column, second line "another child" - Condition in the second row of 'TRUE '.

  -Remove the default line "otherwise".

  -Build and debug without screens

  -Add an instance of the "parent" and change its attribute ID to 'Hotel '.

  -Develop the "child of the parent" relationship and display two child instances "doors and windows" and "another child."

  -Add another instance of the 'parent' using 'Building' as the identifying attribute

  -Expand its children and notes ONLY a child "another child."

  -Export these test data to XML (more on that soon)

  Two important things to note:

  -the condition in the first row limited the creation of a child "windows and doors" to a specific parent instance (i.e. 'hotel').  Similar conditions "say" that the children must be created for parents.

  -children of each parent instance are (by definition) separate proceedings regardless of the value that you choose to use for their identification value (the value identifies, but is not necessarily unique in all of the different parents because the children of each parent are distinct from other children of parents).

  Back to XML... To prove the second point, look at the XML and note the structure (child entity is within the structure of entity (i.e. him "contained").   Also note the "id =...". ' attribute for the child instance is different for each of the bodies of THREE children.  There were 3 child instances deducted even though two of them show the same attribute value in the debugger.  you know there are three different instances because both appear under the first parent and the third appears as the second parent.

  I hope that this clears up misconceptions with "duplicates" you saw...