{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030274361400189215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005676442762535478, 'mean_word_length': 5.412121212121212, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Experiences Using Deliberation RuleML 1.01 as Rule Interchange Language

After four decades of development, it is now well accepted that rules are one of the most suitable decisioning mechanism for changeintensive applications. Moreover, as web applications are expanding everywhere, rule languages allow to publish, trasmit, deploy, and execute rules on the Web. This paper describes some principles and practices of developing rulebases from computationally independent business models using Deliberation RuleML version 1.01. We present a complete rulebase, based on the UServ Product Derby Case Study, ready to be deployed into rule systems allowing RuleML serialization. We also raise two issues that the next version of Deliberation RuleML may address: i) reference to external domain vocabularies used by rules and ii) distinction between binary object properties, i.e. predicates/relations (whose second argument is a RuleML Ind element), and datatype properties, i.e. predicates/relations (whose second argument is a RuleML Data element), as in OWL.