W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > September 2005

Re: Comments to Rules Working Group Charter Draft $Revision: 1.60$ (Part II)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:39 -0400
To: "Giorgos Stamou" <gstam@softlab.ntua.gr>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050908173039.EDF774EF4C@homer.w3.org>

> I remind you that during the Washington Workshop, several use case
> presentations (situation awareness, DoD applications, telecom applications,
> geospatial scenarios etc) described a clear interest in uncertainty
> reasoning and fuzzy logic. Moreover, several participants (including Tim
> Berners-Lee) expressed an interest in the topic and mentioned the need for
> covering uncertainty in the rule language.
> Using the document below, we can satisfy this industry requirement without
> changing anything in the new Working Group proposal. The proposed issue will
> be covered by only adding in the revised charter an optional language
> feature and after the formal start of the WG, a possible Task Force within
> the new Working Group could cover this issue. It is important to mention
> that this feature will not change anything in applications that do not
> require the specification of uncertainty (the work on fuzziness/uncertainty
> that started in RuleML provides a clear scope for such extensions also
> following this requirement). 

> 2.x Uncertainty and fuzziness
> It would be useful for the language to be able to represent uncertain and
> vague information. Thus, the extension of the core language with uncertainty
> reasoning and fuzzy logic capabilities will be provided. A requirement for
> this extension is that it should generalize the two-valued Boolean logic of
> {0,1} into the interval [0,1], by providing a sound extension of Boolean
> logic. Hence, such a feature should not affect applications that do not
> require the specification of uncertainty.

I understand you to be saying uncertainty reasoning and fuzziness
features are independent of the general language design, and so can be
added at some point in time, later.   And that the WG should have this
in scope, because it's useful to a lot of people, and not particularly
difficult.  Right?

     -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC