To allow extensibility within CDCL, there is a built-in capability to allow a rulesheet author to stipulate delegation of decision making on the basis of a proposition within rulesheet authoring form. This would be useful for circumstances where the native implementations of arguments (i.e. the official, supported list of reserved argument words in the CDCL vocabulary) do not offer the kind of logic necessary for correct expression of policy. This, however, necessitates three things:


Here is an example proposition which a rulesheet author might wish to incorporate into a rule:

		* "3.14" IsRelatedTo( "3.14159"

The cited endpoint ( must return TRUE or FALSE or an error. It must accept two input arguments, which are the proposition's left-hand value (e.g. "3.14") and right-hand value (e.g. "3.14159"). The invocation by the Gatepoint will preserve the left-hand and right-hand perspectives as they were presented in the proposition. The service at the endpoint may, at its discretion, require authentication of the calling Gatepoint, and the Gatepoint may, in turn, require authentication of the service.

NOTE: It is very important for rulesheet authors and Gatepoint administrators to beware that use of delegated decision making is, in fact, an uncontrolled disclosure of data. In this example, "3.14" and "3.14159" are disclosed to a third party, thereby exceeding any control the Gatepoint had over that data. It could easily have been the case that the left-hand value was cited by the rule author as "present-document", which would divulge the entire document to the third party (To do: choose a format - a serialized fundamental form?). The most likely and worthy implementation of delegated decision making is when a Gatepoint owner/host extends the capability of its own Gatepoint by creating and hosting delegated decision making services and offering them to rulesheet authors.