[Fuzzy-tg] FW: Fuzzy RuleML

[Giorgos Stoilos]

In an attempt to check the list again I am forwarding this conversation.
Apologies to those who had already received the mails. 

 

  _____  

From: Giorgos Stamou [mailto:gstam at softlab.ntua.gr] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:50 PM
To: 'Gerd Wagner'; 'Carlos Viegas Damásio'; 'Jeff Z. Pan'; 'Umberto
Straccia'; 'Giorgos Stoilos'; Thomas.Lukasiewicz at dis.uniroma1.it
Cc: 'Boley, Harold'
Subject: RE: Fuzzy RuleML

 

 

 

It is quite early to consider the WG issue. It is not an end in itself and
in my opinion, it strongly depends on the success of URW3 XG (and that of
Fuzzy RuleML TG).

 

Concerning the industrial interest, I have to mention that widely used
commercial products for rules (like Prolog for example) have been
incorporated uncertainty and fuzziness handling capabilities. Also, we know
some fuzzy DL reasoning tools and there is an interest from companies to
incorporate them in their crisp reasoners. In a lot of Conferences,
Workshops etc we have been witnessed a lot of interest from several people
in the uncertainty issue. In my opinion, the uncertainty issue has been
gained a lot of interest the last years, since it is strongly motivated from
applications. Our focus now should be on producing concrete results from
both theoretical and practical point of view, at least in our areas in order
to show that this technology is mature enough to be used in applications. If
we do this, please let me be more optimistic for the continuation :)

 

 

Cheers, Giorgos

 

ps. For example, if we do the work that Carlos mentioned for RIF, I am sure
it will be considered from RIF WG as a proposal for an extension.

 

 


  _____  


From: Gerd Wagner [mailto:wagnerg at tu-cottbus.de] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:21 PM
To: 'Giorgos Stamou'; 'Carlos Viegas Damásio'; 'Jeff Z. Pan'; 'Umberto
Straccia'; 'Giorgos Stoilos'; Thomas.Lukasiewicz at dis.uniroma1.it
Cc: 'Boley, Harold'
Subject: RE: Fuzzy RuleML

 

 

ps. Gerd, indeed there are good chances for a W3C WG after a successful
URW3. This is the always one of the main options of W3C incubator
activities.

 

As far as I know the W3C only starts a standardization WG, if there is clear
interest from industry. Given the fact that all rule software vendors I have
talked to have told me that they don't see any need (customer request) for
including special uncertainty contructs in their languages, it doesn't seem
very likely to me that the W3C will find member companies that will support
an uncertainty WG.

 

Of course, the XG can still do some good work.

 

-Gerd


 


  _____  


From: Carlos Viegas Damásio [mailto:cd at di.fct.unl.pt] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:36 AM
To: 'Gerd Wagner'; 'Jeff Z. Pan'; 'Umberto Straccia'; 'Giorgos Stoilos';
'Giorgos Stamou'
Subject: Fuzzy RuleML

Dear all,

 

Sorry for the long information blackout. I am restarting my research
activities, namely in RuleML.

We should plan the next immediate steps regarding Fuzzy RuleML.

I suggest defining the semantics for the language, including the
representation of Fuzzy Data (starting from the work of Gerd and Adrian).

The integration with RIF is also important as well as discussing negation.

 

Best regards,

 

Carlos

 

Carlos Viegas Damásio (Prof. Auxiliar) | Tel: +351-21-294 8536 (ext.10758)
Departamento de Informática            | Fax: +351-21-294 8541
Fac. de Ciências e Tecnologia da       |
Universidade Nova de Lisboa            | 
Qta. da Torre - 2829-516 Caparica      | e-mail: cd at di.fct.unl.pt
PORTUGAL                               | http://centria.di.fct.unl.pt/~cd
 

 

 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 28-02-2007

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ruleml.org/pipermail/fuzzy-tg/attachments/20070302/19e26cfe/attachment.htm