As a reference, you may have seen this briefing, one of many where I show these functional relationships, Mythbusters: Event Stream Processing Versus Complex Event Processing, from DEBS2007.  For example slide 23 shows the functional relationship between events, pre-processing, event tracking, situational detection, historical patterns (the output of BI tools, for example), visualization and business process management.

In Faithful Representation, Richard Veryard reminds his readers that the most challenging part is in the situation models (not the system integration).  Unfortunately, by accident, Richard incorrectly attributes Opher Etzion’s “first order situation model approximation” to both Opher and I in this quote from Richard’s post, “a simple situation model of complex events, in which events (including derived, composite and complex events) represent the “situation”.   

Actually, that simple situation model above is Opher’s, not mine.  I have offered a more general and comprehensive (first draft) situation model, in A Simple Situation Model for Complex Events based on a cognitive situation model used by researchers at the University of Notre Dame.  I do not believe that complex events and situations can be modelled accurately using Opher’s simple model of derived, composite and complex events.   This model is overly simple, in my opinion. to represent the vast majority of CEP classes of problems, perhaps explaining why Opher and I do not agree on the state-of-the-art of CEP.  Opher tends to view CEP as mostly an extension of active database technology where I see CEP as a technology that is much more closely aligned with the cognitive models represented in the art-and-science of multi-sensor data fusion (MSDF).  

Complex events represent situations, and situations must be accurately modelled if we are going to accurately detect them in real-time.  If your business cannot model a complex event (situation) then it does not matter what software you buy, how much money you spend, or what event processing and integration platform you use.   The models are hard.  The system integration is relatively easy.

The secret sauce is the situation and complex event models.

As mentioned here a few times, it does not matter how fast you process events in real-time, if your model is wrong, you just detect the wrong thing very fast.  This is very bad and quite dangerous.  You will make bad decisions fast.  You will waste time, money and resources.

This is why CEP benchmarks should be based on accuracy in situation detection, not in latency and other low-level performance metrics.   First, get the models right; then refine to detect faster, if speed is required.   What has happened in CEP to date, is that the models are so simple, they do not really detect complex events, they just process and act on simple events that are easy to model. 

For example, in my earlier post Modelling Situations for Event Processing, we illustrated modelling in CEP by looking at an example situation, “airplane collision”. This complex event is composed of many objects than are not event-objects. In fact, depending on how you define “event” most of the components of the complex event, “airplane collision” are not events at all, but other situations or sub-states of the objects under observation, in this case an aircraft.

For example, the direction an airplane is flying is not necessarily an “event” per se. Also, the amount of fuel on the aircraft at any given moment in time is not necessarily an “event” either. The same holds true for other components that comprise the object we are modelling. In fact, again depending on how you define “event”, most of the states of the components that are critical to processing a complex event are not events at all, they are simply object-states.

Complex events are generally composed of objects and the state of the complex event is defined by the objects in the complex event determined by the states of the components of the objects in the model.

Another way to view this key point is that CEP is characterised as predicting outcomes (states) based on the relationship between the objects in the model which are, in turn, composed of the states of various components of each of the objects.

So, in a nutshell, what is important to complex event processing is not just processing events, but processing the relative state of objects that comprise model of the complex event.

Furthermore, if you are someone who defines “event” as simply a “change of state,” stay tuned in to the blog for another discussion in a future post; because the vast amount of state changes are not events per se; they are simply changes in states which may or may not have context and meaning in complex event processing.

Having said that, a complex event can be comprised of other events, including other complex events, that is why the notion of OO modelling and programming is very important in CEP.

Belkin gives us plenty of time to get ready for streaming high def: FlyWire uses an adapted form of Wi-Fi in the 5 GHz band to stream HD without having the HD set in close proximity. They're not shipping until October, which could give you some time to get used to the price tag. A $1,000 model is designed to cover a home, and has various infrared and wireless options to control current A/V gear, some of which might be hidden in cabinets away from view. A cheaper $700 option covers just one room, Belkin says, and excludes the IR help. The transmitter has 3 HDMI jacks, including DVI support with audio inputs, along with two component and one composite video and audio input panels. The receiver has a single HDMI output. All HD resolutions are supported. These devices are aimed at people who buy large HDTVs and want to wall mount them.

Folks defining CEP, and now this new term IEP, have been very passionate over the past few years that “Complex Event Processing” means the Processing of “Complex Events” not the “Complex Processing” of Events.   

Grammatically speaking, it follows that Complex is an adjective describing a noun, Event; and Processing is a verb. 

Complex events are defined by the same community as composite events, or events that are composed of two or more “contributing” events.

To be consistent, I think we should follow the same logic and grammar in the discussion of “Intelligent Event Processing”. 

It follows that Intelligent should be an adjective describing a noun, Event; and Processing is a verb.  It also follows that “Intelligent Event Processing” means the Processing of “Intelligent Events” not the “Intelligent Processing” of Events.   

This is precisely the problem that folks are creating a new CEP term, “Intelligent Event Processing” to described processing capabilitities that are missing from the current suite of self-described CEP software products.   What people really mean to describe is the Intelligent Processing of Complex Events.   However, based on the same grammer used in defining CEP, they have created the Processing of Intelligent Events.

The use of inconsistent grammar and logic is not good for the CEP community, in my opinion.   Just because the current generation of self-described CEP vendors do not rise to the capability required by the vast majority of business event applications, we should not create new terms just to make marketing folks happy.

I think I am in a good position to speak about this, because some of my best friends work for software companies selling self-described CEP software and they have seemingly lost patience  because I refuse to support to illogical positioning and repositioning of the CEP market.

Why is the grammar between the terms “Complex Event Processing” and “Intelligent Event Processing” inconsistent?.   Folks can only spin and reposition CEP so much before all the spin, hype, and repositioning begins to catch up with the community.   

Dr. David Luckham’s original papers and single book on CEP was clear enough about CEP; and CEP covers the entire space that Opher Etzion would like to reposition as IEP.    The Grammar of Complex and Intelligent Events are, at best, misleading and inconsistent.

I think the main problem is that what Opher has been describing is the Intelligent Processing of Complex Events - however, to say this would affirm what I have been evangelizing for over two years.

Grammatically speaking, it follows that Complex is an adjective describing a noun, Event; and Processing is a verb. 

Complex events are defined by the same community as composite events, or events that are composed of two or more “contributing” events.

To be consistent, I think we should follow the same logic and grammar in the discussion of “Intelligent Event Processing”. 

It follows that Intelligent should be an adjective describing a noun, Event; and Processing is a verb.  It also follows that “Intelligent Event Processing” means the Processing of “Intelligent Events” not the “Intelligent Processing” of Events.   

This is precisely the problem that folks are creating a new CEP term, “Intelligent Event Processing” to describe processing capabilitities that are missing from the current suite of self-described CEP software products.   What people really mean to describe is the Intelligent Processing of Complex Events.   However, based on the same grammer used in defining CEP, they have created the Processing of Intelligent Events.

The use of inconsistent grammar and logic is not good for the CEP community, in my opinion.   Just because the current generation of self-described CEP vendors do not rise to the capability required by the vast majority of business event applications, we should not create new terms just to make marketing folks happy.

I think I am in a good position to speak about this, because some of my best friends work for software companies selling self-described CEP software and they have seemingly lost patience  because I refuse to support inconsistent illogical positioning and repositioning of the CEP market.

Why is the grammar between the terms “Complex Event Processing” and “Intelligent Event Processing” inconsistent?.   Folks can only spin and reposition CEP so much before all the spin, hype, and repositioning begins to catch up with the community.   

Dr. David Luckham’s original papers and single book on CEP was clear enough about CEP; and CEP covers the entire space that Opher Etzion would like to reposition as IEP.    The Grammar of Complex and Intelligent Events are, at best, misleading and inconsistent.

I think the main problem is that what Opher has been describing is the Intelligent Processing of Complex Events - however, to say this would affirm what I have been evangelizing for over two years.

Mike Burton, Professor of Psychology at Glasgow, and lecturer Rob Jenkins say they achieved their hugely-improved results by eliminating the variable effects of age, hairstyle, expression, lighting, different camera equipment etc. This was done by producing a composite "average face" for a person, synthesised from twenty different pictures across a range of ages, lighting and so on.

Not useful when you only have one grainy photograph of your target, but interesting research nonetheless.