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: Giorgos Stamou <gstam@softlab.ntua.gr>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:22:09 +0300
Message-Id: <200509081922.j88JMSRh029650@theseas.softlab.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:31 PM
> To: Giorgos Stamou
> Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments to Rules Working Group Charter Draft $Revision:
> 1.60$ (Part II)
> > 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.

Exactly, the proposed uncertainty reasoning and fuzziness features will not
change the language design. However, I suggest that they should be added
from the beginning, through a work that follows all the language designing
process. And of course, this should be done within the W3C Rule WG
cooperation and standardization framework. 

> And that the WG should have this
> in scope, because it's useful to a lot of people, and not particularly
> difficult.  Right?
>      -- sandro

Right, that's why I proposed to add three sentences describing a desired
language feature with optional character.

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 19:22:50 UTC

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