Nabble - w3.org - public-rule-workshop-discuss

CfP: 3rd Int. Conf. Track on the Pragmatic Web at i-Semantics 2009 (ICPW 2009)

2008-12-18T14:58:48Z

[ our apologies should you receive this message more than one time ]

3rd International Pragmatic Web Conference Track
(ICPW 2009)

at

International Conference on Semantic Systems
(i-Semantics 2009)

2 - 4 September 2009, Messecongress|Graz, Austria

http://www.pragmaticweb.info/

http://i-semantics.tugraz.at/pragmatic_web_track

============================================================
Papers will be published in JUCS conference proceedings.

Selected best papers will be invited to a forthcoming special issue
of Elsevier Data & Knowledge Engineering (www.elsevier.com/locate/datak)
on "Pragmatic Web".

============================================================

Call for Papers
-----------------

The PRAGMATIC WEB track is a special track within the i-Semantics 2009. It
is centered around the study of "pragmatics" in the Semantic Web. That is,
it draws attention to how communicative actions with a pragmatic context are
performed via Web media and illuminates how mutual understanding and
commitments to actions can evolve in conversations. For further information
about the Pragmatic Web track see http://www.pragmaticweb.info/

Topics of Interest
------------------

* Theories, Frameworks, Models and Methods
...inspired by Pragmatics and Pragmatism, or less formally, case study
reflections on "pragmatic" uses of the Web that supported the negotiation

of social/work relationships and common ground
* Applied pragmatic theory
* Communication, dialogue and argumentation models
* Pragmatic Web media for communicative actions
* Pragmatic collaboration and coordination tools
* Pragmatic context models (e.g. within conversation-based collaborations)
* Pragmatic design principles for Web contents where trust and commitment to

action play a role
* Vocabularies / ontologies for pragmatic primitives (e.g. speech acts,
deontic primitives, etc.)
* Linguistic metaphor: its value for framing the Syntactic, Semantic and
Pragmatic Web
* Pragmatic model of scientific inquiry in Semantic Web research
* Negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, and coordination combining
existing ontologies and schemata, collaborative ontology sharing and
matching techniques
* Integrative frameworks: approaches to integrating insights from component

disciplines (e.g. language-action perspectives, cognition, linguistics,
semiotics, knowledge representation, philosophy, interaction design,
negotiation, media studies)
* Pragmatic reasoning supporting adaptive semantic collaboration and virtual

collaborative teams
* Sense making, analysis and decision-making in a cooperative or non-
cooperative pragmatic model
* Argumentation, dialogue and debate
* Personalized / role-based Pragmatic Web Agents and intelligent
conversation or action based web services
* Pragmatic Web based human-human and human-computer interaction
* Semiotically motivated approaches to information systems
* Semiotic engineering and Semiotics in business computing
* Semiotic theory, concepts, methods and techniques, and their practical
applications

Description
-----------

TRUST AND COMMITMENT: Whether we look at our geo-political and
environmental context, work within and between organizations, or our
local communities, there has never been a greater need for
understanding across cultural, intellectual, and other boundaries.
Whether the context is international policy, distributed teamwork, e-
business, or community mobilisation, fundamentally, people must build
trust and commitment to common goals by talking and acting together.

What role does the Web have to play in these complex processes?

GET PRAGMATIC: The study of "pragmatics" is driven by an interest in
action. It illuminates how it is that we manage to evolve mutual
understanding and commitments in conversation. Central to this
perspective is the understanding that the meaning of everything we
say and do is contextual. When contexts change, meanings change in
conversations, documents, and models of the world. This is something
that we manage fluently in face-to-face conversation, but when
working on the Web over space and time, tools must still support
adaptation to new contexts. A focus on pragmatics draws attention to
how communicative actions are performed via Web media.

THE PRAGMATIC WEB CONFERENCE TRACK at i-Semantics 2009 is a unique forum
to envision and debate how the emerging social, semantic, multimedia Web
mediates the ways in which we construct shared meaning. While there is
much research and development into topics relevant to this challenge such as

collaboration, usability, knowledge representation, and social
informatics, the Pragmatic Web conference provides common ground for
dialogue at the nexus of these topics.

WE INVITE YOU as a researcher or practitioner working on these
challenges to join the special Pragmatic Web track at the i-Semantics 2009
in September to share your work, and to come and
find out what others are doing. This is an emerging network of people
exploring the intersection of established intellectual traditions and
the fast changing Web: come and help shape the community!

CHALLENGES include:
-------------------

* How can we better understand the usefulness, and limitations, of a
concept such as "Web Pragmatics"

* What pragmatic design principles improve websites where trust and
commitment to action are central?

* What are the tradeoffs for users of more structured Web
collaboration media? (e.g. in learnability, scaleability,
intelligibility)

* How can participatory work practices and collaboration tools be
orchestrated in the design of the standards, data models and
ontologies that underpin data-driven Web applications?

* What role does pragmatics play in the design of personalised
information and personalised actions channelled through the Web?

* What impact (intended or unintended, productive or disruptive) do
different levels of computational infrastructure have on Web pragmatics?

* How can we clarify our understandings of increasingly important
concepts on the Web such as "social ties", "metadata", "knowledge
representation", and "transaction"?

* If "context" is pivotal in making human interaction meaningful, how
can we take context into account to improve Web applications?

Submission Information
-----------------------

All accepted papers of Pragmatic Web Conference Track at I-SEMANTICS 2009
will appear in the printed i-Semantics conference proceedings published by
the Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS). Selected papers will also
be invited for an extension to be published as journal publication in the
forthcoming special issue of Elsevier Data & Knowledge Engineering
(www.elsevier.com/locate/datak)
on "Pragmatic Web".

Submissions must be original and must not have been submitted for
publication elsewhere. Articles should follow the JUCS guidelines for
formatting (http://www.jucs.org/ujs/jucs/info/submissions/style_guide.html)
and must be submitted via the online submission system available at the
conference website as PDF documents (other formats will not be accepted).
For the camera-ready version, we will also need the source files (Latex,
OpenOffice, Word).

Research/Application Papers
Research/Application papers report on novel research and/or applications
relevant to the topics of the conference. The number of pages of research
papers is limited to 8 pages including references and an optional appendix.

Posters, Demos & Tutorials
The conference also particularly welcomes the submission of posters, demos,
and tutorials. Submissions should consist of a 2-4 page description that
allows us to judge the quality of your presentation. Descriptions will also
be published as part of the i-Semantics proceedings.

Important Dates
---------------

- Paper Submission Deadline: 9 March 2009
- Acceptance of Notification: to be announced
- Submission of Camera-Ready Paper: to be announced
- Conference: 2 - 4 September 2009

Pragmatic Web Conference Track Chairs
--------------------------------------

Adrian Paschke, Free University Berlin, Germany
Hans Weigand, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Programme Committee
-------------------

(to be announced soon)

CfP: I-Semantics 2009: International Conference on Semantic Systems

2008-12-18T13:42:01Z

[ our apologies should you receive this message more than one time ]

Call for Papers

I-Semantics 2009: International Conference on Semantic Systems

Graz, Austria, 2 - 4 September 2009

http://www.i-semantics.at

Scope

=====

I-SEMANTICS 2009 (www.i-semantics.at) is the 5th conference in the I-SEMANTICS series and provides a forum for academic and industrial research & development that focuses on semantic technologies and the Semantic Web. I-SEMANTICS 2009 will bring together both researchers and practitioners in the areas of Social Software and the Semantic Web in order to present and develop innovative ideas that help realising the “Social Semantic Web” and the “Corporate Semantic Web”.

I-SEMANTICS 2009 will be the host of this year`s regional Pragmatic Web Conference as well as the second edition of the TRIPLIFICATION Challenge. Further on I-SEMANTICS will be complemented by I-KNOW (www.i-know.at), the International Conference on Knowledge Management. This setup is aiming to reflect the increasing importance and convergence of knowledge management and semantic systems.

Topics

======

Social Software systems such as Blogs and Wikis have led to a dramatic increase of content available on the Web and within organisations. Professional content is nowadays to large extents created by independent individuals instead of large publishers, it is shared and made available free of charge, and often constantly improved by collaborative processes. A question that is yet unsolved, is how to find the relevant information in increasingly large and complex content bases, a problem where technologies developed in the course of the Semantic Web initiative can help. Likewise, it will be beneficial to harness social content production not only for traditional content but also for the creation and improvement of machine-understandable knowledge, such as meta-data, taxonomies and ontologies for purposes on the web as well as within organisations.

The special focus of I-SEMANTICS 2009 is „Semantic Web & Semantic Social Software – Pragmatic Aspects for Corporations, Communities and Individuals”.

As a conference aiming to bring together science and industry, I-SEMANTICS encourages both, scientific (research/application) and industrial contributions. The following table summarises the topics we are interested in:

Semantic Social Software

------------------------

• Semantic / structured blogging

• Semantic / structured tagging

• Semantic wikis

• Semantic content management systems

• Semantic data web: browsers and end-points

• Semantic desktop

• Semantic mashups

• Storage, inference and caching for scalable SSW applications

Semantic Content Engineering

----------------------------

• Ontology Engineering & Ontology Merging

• Ontology Design Patterns

• Ontology Life Cycle Management

• Ontology Learning

• Ontology and semantic knowledge federation

• Linguistic and statistic approaches (text-mining, NLP, etc.) for structuring and extracting content and entities

• Automated annotation, extreme tagging and digital curation approaches

Web of Data and Linked Data

---------------------------

• Contributing to the linked data cloud

• Triplification approaches

• Vocabularies, taxonomies, schemas

• Semantic interoperability

• Upper level ontologies for open data

• Linked Data Applications & Linked Data Browsing

• Querying Linked Data

• Using Linked Data in Enterprises

Building Blocks for Semantic Web Applications

---------------------------------------------

• Rules and ontologies as building blocks for Semantic Web Applications

• Existing tools and applications

• Application domains

• Application stacks for the design of semantic applications

• Design processes from requirements to maintenance

• Design patterns, Best practices and Reference Models

• Persistence of semantic data

• Applications utilizing open data sets

• Semantic media management and retrieval

• Semantic web services

• Semantifying legacy web applications and semantic heterogeneous information systems

• Social semantic web and mobile services

• User-interface components, template languages supporting semantic social content

• Integration of distributed semantic repositories

• Policy Awareness & Policy Aware Web

Pragmatic Web

-------------

For a detailed description of the topics of this year`s Pragmatic Web Conference (ICPW 09) please go to http://www.pragmaticweb.info/

• Theories, Frameworks, Models and Methods...inspired by Pragmatics and Pragmatism, or less formally, case study reflections on "pragmatic" uses of the Web that supported the negotiation of social/work relationships and common ground

• Applied pragmatic theory

• Communication, dialogue and argumentation models

• Pragmatic Web media for communicative actions

• Pragmatic collaboration and coordination tools

• Pragmatic context models (e.g. within conversation-based collaborations)

• Pragmatic design principles for Web contents where trust and commitment to action play a role

• Vocabularies / ontologies for pragmatic primitives (e.g. speech acts, deontic primitives, etc.)

• Linguistic metaphor: its value for framing the Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Web

• Pragmatic model of scientific inquiry in Semantic Web research

• Negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, and coordination combining existing ontologies and schemata, collaborative ontology sharing and matching techniques

• Integrative frameworks: approaches to integrating insights from component disciplines (e.g. language-action perspectives,cognition, linguistics, semiotics, knowledge representation, philosophy, interaction design, negotiation, media studies)

• Pragmatic reasoning supporting adaptive semantic collaboration and virtual collaborative teams

• Sense making, analysis and decision-making in a cooperative or non-cooperative pragmatic model

• Argumentation, dialogue and debate

• Personalized / role-based Pragmatic Web Agents and intelligent conversation or action based web services

• Pragmatic Web based human-human and human-computer interaction

• Semiotically motivated approaches to information systems

• Semiotic engineering and Semiotics in business computing

• Semiotic theory, concepts, methods and techniques, and their practical applications

Studies, Metrics & Benchmarks

-----------------------------

• Case studies of semantic systems usage

• Use cases for semantic web systems

• Evaluation perspectives, methods and Semantic Web research methodologies

• Technology assessment, acceptance/media choice theories

• Usability and user interaction with semantic technologies

• Analysis of emergent effects within social software

• Ontology quality models

• Quality analysis of socially generated semantic content

Corporate Semantic Web

----------------------

• Semantics, Pragmatics and Semiotics in Organizations

• Corporate Semantic Web business applications and deep semantic web

• Social software in a corporate context

• Semantic Business Information Management

• Semantic Enterprise Application Integration

• Corporate thesauri, corporate business vocabularies / ontologies and business rules

• Semantic Computer Supported Cooperative Work

• Semantic Business Process Management

• Semantic Business Information Systems

• Semantic technologies in enterprise governance, enterprise decision management and enterprise operations management

• Economic and entrepreneurial aspects of semantic-enriched enterprise application systems and enterprise service networks

• Economies of "attention" for semantic collaboration

• Business models for social semantic web applications

• Business use and use cases for corporate semantic web systems

• Models measuring costs/benefits of semantic technologies in the sense of entrepreneurial activity

• Implementation of gratification and reward systems

• Authentication, authorization, pricing, and accounting - policies, charging and billing models for semantic (social) software

• Methodologies for the introduction of enterprise wikis & semantically enhanced enterprise software

Governance & Social Issues on the Semantic Web

----------------------------------------------

• Group management, presence, social interaction enablers in mobile service platforms

• Strategies for implementing architectures of semantic participation

• Trust and privacy issues in social software

• Analysis of motivations and behavior of social software users

Triplification Challenge

========================

I-SEMANTICS 2009 will also hold the 2nd TRIPLFICATION Challenge. We encourage submissions such as:

• Applications of Linked Data tools and techniques such as for example Triplify, Virtuoso or D2RQ on custom Web applications and data sets exposing a large quantity and variety of content.

• Implementations of exporters and mappers from existing content repository formats (such as mbox mailing list archives, BibTeX, XML-Schemes etc.) into RDF and Linked Data.

• Adoptions / configurations of Triplify for standard Web applications, such as for example Wikis, Weblogs, Webshops, Forums, Web-Gallery, ERP/CRM systems and Web-calendar software. You can find popular Web applications for example at SourceForge.

• Portings of the Triplify script into other Web application programming languages such as Python, Ruby, Perl, ASP. The Triplify script is very small (<300 lines of code) however, the port should be as compatible as possible with the current reference implementation but integrate well with the environment given by the programming language.

• Applications showcasing the benefits of Linked Data to end-users such as for information syndication, specialized search, browsing or augmentation of content.

The challenge is open to anyone interested in applying Semantic Web and Linked Data technologies. This might include students, developers, researchers, and people from industry. Individual or group submissions are both acceptable.

Please find further information at http://i-semantics.tugraz.at/triplification_challenge.

Submission Information

======================

All accepted papers of I-SEMANTICS 2009 will appear in the printed conference proceedings published by the Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS). Selected papers will also be invited for an extension to be published as journal publication in a special issue of Elsevier DKE (Data & Knowledge Engineering). Submissions must be original and must not have been submitted for publication elsewhere. Articles should follow the JUCS guidelines for formatting (http://www.jucs.org/ujs/jucs/info/submissions/style_guide.html) and must be submitted via the online submission system available at the conference website as PDF documents (other formats will not be accepted). For the camera-ready version, we will also need the source files (Latex, OpenOffice, Word).

Research/Application Papers

---------------------------

Research/Application papers report on novel research and/or applications relevant to the topics of the conference. The number of pages of research papers is limited to 8 pages including references and an optional appendix.

Posters, Demos & Tutorials

--------------------------

The conference also particularly welcomes the submission of posters, demos, and tutorials. Submissions should consist of a 2-4 page description that allows us to judge the quality of your presentation. Descriptions will also be published as part of the proceedings.

Important Dates

===============

• Paper Submission Deadline: 9 March 2009

• Acceptance of Notification: to be announced

• Submission of Camera-Ready Paper: to be announced

• Conference: 2 - 4 September 2009

Organising Committee

====================

(in alphabetical order)

Programme Chairs

----------------

* Wernher Behrendt (Salzburg Research)

* Andreas Blumauer (Semantic Web Company)

* Michael Hausenblas (Joanneum Research / DERI Galway)

* Adrian Paschke (Free University of Berlin)

* Klaus Tochtermann (Know Center Graz)

* Hans Weigand (University of Tilburg)

Organisation Chairs

-------------------

* Georg Güntner (Salzburg NewMediaLab)

* Markus Luczak-Rösch (Free University of Berlin)

* Tassilo Pellegrini (Semantic Web School)

CFP: 3rd International Conference on Adaptive Business Information Systems (ABIS'09)

2008-10-10T11:30:17Z

[ our apologies should you receive this message more than one time ]

3^rd International Conference on

Adaptive Business Information Systems

Leipzig, Germany, 23-25 March

http://siwn.org.uk/2009leipzig/ABIS09.htm

Call for Papers

Second SIWN Congress (SIWN 2009)

collocated with

SOFTWARE, AGENTS, AND SERVICES FOR BUSINESS, RESEARCH, AND E-SCIENCES (SABRE 2009)

============================================================

Papers of the conference will be invited to publish

their revised versions in a journal issue of the

International Journal Communications of SIWN

(CoSIWN) (ISSN 1757-4439)

============================================================

Overview

--------

Information Technologies in their broad sense have been profoundly changing the ways, the processes and the philosophies of businesses. Adaptive business applications support processes whose workflows, user interfaces and business rules often change. The need for these dynamic applications is greater now than ever before and business systems in every perspective, management, workflow, information, infrastructure, etc. are evolving themselves towards being autonomic, adaptive, self-managing, self-organizing, and so forth. Emerging technologies such business rules management systems, complex event processing engines, event-driven business process management tools, corporate semantic web technologies, etc. are now gaining increasing momentum as they promise enhanced adaptive and agility capabilities to businesses, in order to sense unexpected environmental changes and to respond to business opportunities or to avoid business risks that turn up in a turbulent and quickly changing business environment.

ABIS 2009 aims to provide a premier forum for stimulating exchange and in-depth discussion of advances, challenges and emerging areas in adaptive business information systems.

Conference Venue

------------------------

Next year in March the European SIWN 2009 roof conference (see http://siwn.org.uk/2009leipzig/), which hosts ABIS'09 (http://siwn.org.uk/2009leipzig/ABIS09.htm), will take place in Leipzig together with the SABRE 2009 conference (see http://sabreconference.wifa.uni-leipzig.de/frontend/index.php). Moreover, that year will be the 600 anniversary of Leipzig University.

Thus, after a series of successful ABIS conferences the 3rd ABIS'09 will be something very special and collocated with several other conferences and events.

Deadlines

---------

05 December 2008 Submission of manuscripts

05 January 2009 Notification of acceptance

01 February 2009 Camera-Ready Version (CRV) & Presentation files due

23-25 March 2009 Conferences

Topics of Interest

------------------

Topics of particular interest include (but not limited to) the followings.

(1) Enterprise Information / Management Systems

- business process integration

- business process management

- agile business process management

- event-driven business process management

- business rules and rule-based approaches for the business

- enterprise resource planning

- corporate semantic web

- enterprise workflow management

- inventory / warehouse management

- management information systems

- manufacturing resource planning

- material requirement planning

- product data management

- product life cycle management

- production and operation management

- production planning and control

- total quality management

- business / IT service management and governance

(2) Business Collaboration

- business coalition

- business partnership

- coalition formation

- collaborative e-business

- agent-based e-business

- enterprise federation

- enterprise integration

- global enterprise

- global information systems

- inter-enterprise transaction and workflow management

- inter-organizational systems

- corporate semantic web collaboration systems

- knowledge network and management

- virtual / networked enterprises

- workflow interoperation

(3) Supply Chains and Logistics

- cooperation of supply chains

- coordination / optimization in supply chains

- customer / supplier relationship management

- demand chain management

- e-logistics

- global supply networks

- inventory management in supply chains

- logistics and transportation systems

- modeling of supply chains

- multi-agent negotiations in supply chains

- supply chain design and performance evaluation

- supply chain dynamic formation

- supply chain management

(4) E-Business

- agent mediated auction mechanisms

- agent mediated bidding and negotiation

- agent-mediated e-commerce

- business rules in e-business

- authentication / privacy / security in e-business

- B2B, B2C, C2C models

- e-banking

- e-bidding and e-negotiation

- e-business design and developments

- e-business process modeling, integration, and monitoring

- e-business security, trust and privacy

- e-commerce

- e-commerce content management

- electronic data interchange

- e-marketing and e-advertising

- e-marketplaces

- e-payment

- e-taxation

- e-work

- global e-business

- mobile commerce

(5) Business Intelligence

- artificial neural networks / evolutionary computation in business

- data mining in business

- group decision systems in business

- information retrieval in business

- intelligent agents in business

- intelligent decision support systems in business

- knowledge based / expert systems in business

- knowledge management and ontology in business

- machine learning in business

- multi-linguistic user interfaces in business

- natural language processing in business

- particle swarm optimization / ant colony optimization in business

- corporate semantic web in business

- soft computing / fuzzy logic in business

- swarm / collective / social intelligence in business

(6) On-Demand Business

- adaptive business

- adaptive enterprises

- agile business

- agile enterprise

- business adaptation / evolution

- business process re-engineering

- emergent enterprise

- enterprise re-engineering

- holonic enterprise

- on-demand e-business

- utility computing

- service oriented computing

- re-configurable enterprises

- re-configurable / agile / holonic manufacturing system

- responsive business

- responsive enterprise

- self-configuration of enterprise systems

- self-organized production system

- self-organizing business

- self-organizing enterprises

(7) Information Infrastructures of Businesses

- complex event processing

- business rules and rule-based approaches

- distributed object systems

- e-business applications and integration

- electronic data interchange

- enterprise (distributed) computing

- enterprise applications interoperability

- enterprise applications integration

- enterprise collaborative computing

- corporate semantic web and business ontologies

- enterprise distributed intelligence

- enterprise Grid computing

- enterprise internet

- enterprise middleware

- enterprise portals

- enterprise service bus

- event-driven architectures

- enterprise service oriented architectures

- enterprise web services

- enterprise XML

Type of contributions and instructions

-----------------------------------------------------

ABIS 2009 Technical Committee seeks original contributions in all areas of Adaptive Business Information Systems.

Submissions must be original contributions that neither have been published nor have been under review for publication elsewhere. All submissions must be in English and no more than 7 pages in the format specified in the Instructions for Authors, which are available on http://siwn.org.uk/press/ita.htm.

To submit a paper, a file in pdf format containing the manuscript of submission must be uploaded to the ABIS 2009 submission website at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=abis09

All manuscripts submitted will be sent to 3 members of the International Technical Program Committees of the Conferences for peer reviews and assessed according to the technical merits and presentation, on which the acceptance decision will be based.

Accepted papers will be included in the CD-ROM Proceedings of SIWN 2009, which will be available for participants at the Conferences to promote the widest exchange and dissemination at the Conferences.

Accepted papers of the conference will be invited to publish their revised versions in the international journal <<Communications of SIWN>> (CoSIWN, http://siwn.org.uk/cosiwn/) (ISSN 1757-4439) after the conference. Details can be seen on the SIWN 2009 website.

Proposals of workshops, invited sessions and tutorials on emerging areas are welcome. Please discuss your proposals with Prof. Dr. Adrian Paschke, the Chair of ABIS 2009 Technical Committee (abis09@...).

Program Committee

-----------------------------

+ Esma Aimeur, Université de Montréal, CA

+ Soeren Auer, University Leipzig, Germany

+ Matteo Baldoni, University of Torino, Italy

+ Claudio Bartolini, HP Labs, USA

+ Paul Buhler, College of Charleston, USA

+ Luis M. Camarinha-Matos, New University of Lisbon, Portugal

+ Jorge Cuellar, Siemens Corporate Research, Germany

+ Jiangbo Dang, Siemens Corporate Research, Germany

+ Marlon Dumas, University of Tartu, Estonia

+ Schahram Dustdar, TU Wien, Vienna

+ Agata Filipowska, Poznan University of Economics, Poland

+ Rony G. Flatscher, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Austria

+ Dragan Gasevic, Simon Fraser University, Canada

+ Adrian Giurca, Technical University of Cottbus, Germany

+ Robert Golan, DB Mind, USA

+ Jaap Gordijn, Vrije Universiteit, NL

+ Dominic Greenwood, Whitestein Technologies AG, USA

+ Steven Guan, Xian Jiatong-Liverpool University, China

+ Oliver Guenther, HU Berlin, Germany

+ Ulrich Hasenkamp, Uni Marburg, Germany

+ Christian Huemer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria

+ Herbert Kopfer, Uni Bremen, Germany

+ Kyriakos Kritikos, ICS-FORTH, Greece

+ Leora Morgenstern, IBM, US

+ Gero Muehl, TU Berlin, Germany

+ Joerg Mueller, TU Clausthal, Germany

+ Dirk Neumann Albert-Ludwig University Freiburg, Germany

+ Volker Nissen, Technische Universitaet Ilmenau, Germany

+ Andreas Oberweis, Uni Karlsruhe, Germany

+ Alexander Pokahr, University of Hamburg, Germany

+ Dumitru Roman, DERI Innsbruck, Austria

+ Graham Rong, MIT, USA

+ Kurt Sandkuhl, Jönköping University, Sweden

+ Matthias Schumann, Uni Goettingen, Germany

+ Michael Sheng, The University of Adelaide, Australia

+ Susanne Strahringer, TU Dresden, Germany

+ Vijay Sugumaran, Oakland University, USA

+ Klaus Turowski, Uni Augsburg, Germany

+ Jan Vanthienen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

+ Hans Weigand, Tilburg University, Netherlands

+ Gerhard Weiss, Software Competence Center Hagenberg GmbH, Germany

+ Yingjie Yang, De Montfort University, UK

=====================================================================

In Co-operation with:

Corporate Semantic Web (http://www.corporate-semantic-web.de/) funded by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the BMBF Innovation Initiative for the New German Länder - Entrepreneurial Regions, "InnoProfile”

RuleML (http://www.ruleml.org/) – Realize your knowledge

CITT (http://www.citt-online.com/) - Centrum für Informations-Technologie Transfer (CITT) GmbH

=====================================================================

Contact

Prof. Dr. Adrian Paschke

AG-CSW (Corporate Semantic Web)

Institute of Informatics

Free University Berlin

paschke@...

Special Journal Issue IEEE TKDE: Call for Contributions

2008-10-09T04:41:45Z

Dear Colleagues,

Please consider to participate in RuleML-2008 (http://2008.ruleml.org/)
which will be in about 3 weeks in Orlando, Florida, collocated with the
world largest Business Rules Forum.

We have a very interesting program with renowned speakers, a prestigious
rules Challenge, a special session + panel about Rule standards, etc.

We are also editing a special issue of IEEE TKDE. Please consider to
contribute to this issue and forward the open call for contributions (below)
to your interested colleagues.

Thanks,

Adrian

[ our apologies should you receive this message more than one time ]

===========================================================================
CALL FOR Contributions

Rule Representation, Interchange and Reasoning in Distributed,
Heterogeneous Environments

Special Issue of IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Guest Editors: N. Bassiliades, G. Governatori, A. Paschke, J. Dix
===========================================================================

In recent years rule based technologies have enjoyed remarkable adoption in
two areas: (1) Business Rule Processing and (2) Web-Centered Reasoning. The
first trend is caused by the software development life cycle, which needs
to be accelerated at reduced cost. The second trend is related to the
Semantic Web and Service-oriented technologies, which aim to turn the Web
into a huge repository of cross-referenced, machine-understandable data and
processes. For both trends, rules can be used to extract, derive,
transform, and integrate information in a platform-independent manner.
While early rule engines and environments were complex, expensive to
maintain, and not very user friendly, the current generation of rule
technology provides enhanced usability, scalability and performance, and is
less costly. A general advantage of using rules is that they are usually
represented in a platform independent manner, often using XML. This fits
well into today's distributed, heterogeneous Web-based system environments.
Rules represented in standardized Web formats can be discovered,
interchanged and invoked at runtime within and across Web systems, and can
be interpreted and executed on any platform.

This special issue solicits state-of-the-art approaches, solutions and
applications in the area of Rule Representation, Reasoning and Interchange
in the context of distributed, (partially) open, heterogeneous
environments, such as the Semantic Web, Intelligent Multi-Agent Systems,
Event-Driven Architectures and Service-Oriented Computing. We strongly
advise that solicited contributions should clearly identify the target
class of applications they enable.

=======
Topics
=======

Original contributions, not currently under review or accepted by another
journal, are solicited in relevant areas including (but not limited to) the
following:

- Rule Representation and Languages
* Rule languages for exchanging and processing information through the
web
* Representation and meta-annotation of rules and rule sets for
publication and interchange
* Event-driven/action rule languages and models
* Rule-based event processing languages and rule-based complex event
processing
* Modeling of executable rule specifications and tool support
* Natural-language processing of rules
* Graphical processing, modeling and rendering of rules
* Rules in web 2.0, web 3.0, semantic web technologies and web
intelligence research

- Reasoning and Rule Engines
* Execution models, rule engines, and environments
* Rule-based (multi-valued) reasoning with and representing uncertain
and fuzzy information
* Rule-based reasoning with non-monotonic negation, modalities, deontic,
temporal, priority, scoped or other rule qualifications
* Rule-based default reasoning with default logic, defeasible logic, and
answer set programming
* Compilation vs. interpretation approaches of rules
* Hybrid rule systems

- Rule Interchange and Integration
* Interchange and refactoring of rule bases in heterogeneous execution
environments
* Rule-based agility and its role in middleware
* Communication between rule based systems using interchange formats and
processing / communication middleware
* Information integration of external data and domain knowledge into
rules
* Homogeneous and heterogeneous integration of rules and ontologies
* Extraction and reengineering of platform-independent, interchangeable
rules and rule models from existing platform-specific resources
* Rule interchange standards and related industry interchange formats
* Incorporation of rule technology into distributed enterprise
application architectures
* Interoperation between different rule formats and ontological domain
conceptualization
* Translation of interchangeable and domain-independent rule formats and
rule models into executable technical rule specifications

- Rule Engineering and Repositories
* Verification and validation of interchanged rule bases in
heterogeneous execution environments
* Practical solutions tackling the real-world software engineering
requirements of rule-based systems in open, distributed environments
* Collaborative authoring, modeling and engineering of rule
specifications and rule repositories
* Management and maintenance of distributed rule bases and rule
repositories during their lifecycle

- Web Rule Applications
* Applications and integration of rules in web standards
* Applications of rules in the semantic web and pragmatic web
* Applications based on (semantic) web rule standardization or
standards-proposing efforts
* Applications of rules in e.g. legal reasoning, compliance rules,
security, government, security, risk management, trust and proof
reasoning, etc.
* E-contracting and automated negotiations with rule-based declarative
strategies
* Specification, execution and management of rule-based policies and
electronic contracts
* Rule-based software agents and (web) services
* Theoretical and/or empirical evaluation of rule-based system
performance and scalability

=======================
Submission Guidelines
=======================

Prospective authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Information
for Authors as published in recent issues of the journal or at
http://www.computer.org/tkde/. Note that mandatory over-length page charges
and color charges will apply.
Manuscripts should be submitted through the online IEEE manuscript
submission system at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cs-ieee.
Updated information of this call can be found at
http://lpis.csd.auth.gr/publications/tkde-si/.

=======================
Schedule
=======================

Deadline for paper submission: March 1, 2009
Completion of first review: June 19, 2009
Minor/Major revision due: August 21, 2009
Final decision notification: November 6, 2009
Publication materials due: December 4, 2009
Publication date (tentative): July 2010

=======================
Guest Editors
=======================

Nick Bassiliades, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
nbassili AT csd.auth.gr

Guido Governatori, NICTA, Australia
guido.governatori AT nicta.com.au

Adrian Paschke, Free University Berlin, Corporate Semantic Web, Germany
paschke AT inf.fu-berlin.de

Jurgen Dix, Clausthal University of Technology, Germany
dix AT tu-clausthal.de

Re: W3C RIF BLD Last Call (10 days left in comment period)

2008-09-09T09:17:23Z

[ Folks, please try to pick *one* mailing list for a reply, if you want
to make a public-discussion reply. I'll reply to Henry on semantic-web,
as the most general list. Comments which you want to be taken as formal
input to any Working Group need to be sent the comment list named in the
document you're commenting on. -- Sandro ]

> Just on first reading I find the syntax to be quite problematic. It
> clashes with other well known syntaxes namely Turtle, SPARQL and N3.
>
> The two problems I see is that in those languages square brackets are
> used for blank nodes, and { } to delimit graphs.
>
> As an example take the following
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080730/#RDF_Compatibility
>
> [[
> Forall ?x ?y ?z (?x[ex:uncleOf -> ?z] :-
> And(?x[ex:brotherOf -> ?y] ?y[ex:parentOf -> ?z]))
> ]]
>
> If I were to write the above in SPARQL I think you meant to say
>
> [[
> PREFIX ex: <http://example.org/rif>
>
> CONSTRUCT { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z }
> WHERE {
> ?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
> ?y ex:parehtOf ?z .
> }
> ]]
>
> In N3 similarly
>
> [[
> { ?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
> ?y ex:parehtOf ?z . } => { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z . }
> ]]
>
> SPARQL is already widely deployed, and there are a lot of N3 rules out
> there, that are very useful guides for people working their way around
> the web. There is even more Turtle around, and it is a blessing that
> it is now being used, as RDF/XML though very nice in many ways, leads
> to a huge amount of confusion.
>
> My feeling is that the current human readable syntax, not being
> aligned with SPARQL is going to create confusion unecessarily. It
> seems to be that an attempt should be made to get something that fits
> better with SPARQL and N3 intuitions, so as to make the learning curve
> as light as possible for people who are new to this world.
>
> Henry
>
> On 9 Sep 2008, at 16:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The W3C specifications for logic rules and for using rules with RDF
> > and
> > OWL are in their "Last Call" public comment period. This is the time
> > for people to read them and tell us about anything that doesn't seem
> > right. After this, if you don't like something in the spec, it will
> > be
> > increasingly hard to get it changed. We would like comments by
> > September 19 in order to consider them for our next set of revisions.
> >
> > For more details, see this e-mail I sent August 1st:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0002.html
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Sandro

Re: W3C RIF BLD Last Call (10 days left in comment period)

2008-09-09T08:57:35Z

Just on first reading I find the syntax to be quite problematic. It
clashes with other well known syntaxes namely Turtle, SPARQL and N3.

The two problems I see is that in those languages square brackets are
used for blank nodes, and { } to delimit graphs.

As an example take the following
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080730/#RDF_Compatibility

[[
Forall ?x ?y ?z (?x[ex:uncleOf -> ?z] :-
And(?x[ex:brotherOf -> ?y] ?y[ex:parentOf -> ?z]))
]]

If I were to write the above in SPARQL I think you meant to say

[[
PREFIX ex: <http://example.org/rif>

CONSTRUCT { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z }
WHERE {
?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
?y ex:parehtOf ?z .
}
]]

In N3 similarly

[[
{ ?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
?y ex:parehtOf ?z . } => { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z . }
]]

SPARQL is already widely deployed, and there are a lot of N3 rules out
there, that are very useful guides for people working their way around
the web. There is even more Turtle around, and it is a blessing that
it is now being used, as RDF/XML though very nice in many ways, leads
to a huge amount of confusion.

My feeling is that the current human readable syntax, not being
aligned with SPARQL is going to create confusion unecessarily. It
seems to be that an attempt should be made to get something that fits
better with SPARQL and N3 intuitions, so as to make the learning curve
as light as possible for people who are new to this world.

Henry

On 9 Sep 2008, at 16:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>
> The W3C specifications for logic rules and for using rules with RDF
> and
> OWL are in their "Last Call" public comment period. This is the time
> for people to read them and tell us about anything that doesn't seem
> right. After this, if you don't like something in the spec, it will
> be
> increasingly hard to get it changed. We would like comments by
> September 19 in order to consider them for our next set of revisions.
>
> For more details, see this e-mail I sent August 1st:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0002.html
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Sandro

W3C RIF BLD Last Call (10 days left in comment period)

2008-09-09T07:51:27Z

The W3C specifications for logic rules and for using rules with RDF and
OWL are in their "Last Call" public comment period. This is the time
for people to read them and tell us about anything that doesn't seem
right. After this, if you don't like something in the spec, it will be
increasingly hard to get it changed. We would like comments by
September 19 in order to consider them for our next set of revisions.

For more details, see this e-mail I sent August 1st:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0002.html

Thanks!

-- Sandro

nasa

2008-04-19T04:12:16Z

: Recycling waste management

Over the past few decades, recycling has become a central component of many business operations in the United States. Recycling is valued for the cost-savings associated with some programs as well as its general environment-friendly aspects. Recycling programs are comprised of three elements in a continuum represented by the well-known "chasing arrows" symbol that adorns recyclable products: 1) collection of recyclable materials from the waste stream; 2) processing of those materials into new products; and 3) purchasing of products containing recycled materials

Food and Fitness: golf

Golf Clubs is a competitive sport, and a very popular recreational activity played by people of a wide range of age and ability. Unlike many other activities, golf retains its players throughout their lifetime. Golfers in their eighties claim that the game helps them to keep physically and mentally fit. Golf strengthens the back and shoulders, and helps to maintain spine rotation, necessary for a healthy back.

There are two contrasting parts to the game. On the tee, power is used to hit the ball as close to the hole as possible. The tee shot requires considerable strength in the upper body, and flexibility in the back and legs. When on the green, great muscle control and accuracy are needed to putt the ball delicately into the hole. Golfers use Heathrow taxis to get to the airport

Phone sex

Phone sex is a type of virtual sex that refers to sexually explicit conversation between two or more persons via telephone, especially when at least one of the participants phonesex numbers masturbate or engages in sexual fantasy. Phone sex conversation may take many forms, including (but not limited to): guided, narrated, and enacted suggestions; sexual anecdotes and confessions; candid expression of sexual feelings or love a UK phone sex blog discussion of very personal and sensitive sexual topics; or just two people listening to each other masturbate.

Wikipedia: sex worker

A sex worker in UK Porn

A sex worker is a person who earns money by providing sexual services. The term is sometimes used as a synonym or euphemism for prostitution, but most scholars define it to include all individuals who perform sexual or sexually oriented activities in the phone porn sex industry, such as swingers strippers, erotic massage therapists, pornography actors and actresses, live sex shows, webcam shows, and phone sex operators.

Casino

The history of the word mobile phone casino reveals a transformation from a cottage to a gambling palace. The source of our word, Italian casino, is a diminutive of casa, “house.” Central to the transformation is the development of the senses of casino in Italian. The word was first applied to a country house and then came to be used for a social gathering place, a room or building where one could dance, listen to music, and gamble. This last pastime seems to have gained precedence over the others, at least as far as the development of the word is concerned, and casino took on the meaning “gambling establishment.” These senses of the Italian word have all been borrowed into English, the sense “social gathering place” mobile phone bingo being recorded first in the 18th century, the sense “gambling establishment” first in 1851.

Re: lunar

2008-04-19T04:11:57Z

: Recycling waste management

Food and Fitness: golf

Phone sex

Wikipedia: sex worker

A sex worker in UK Porn

Casino

lunar

2007-09-24T14:35:48Z

nasa moonbase

The next astronauts to work on the moon will likely live in larger
habitats and drive sporty new rovers capable of
two-week treks, NASA officials said Thursday.

Rather than assembling a lunar outpost over time from a multitude of
small, separately launched modules, NASA is now hoping
to land up to three large habitats on fewer flights to build a beachhead
on the moon, the space agency said.

Doug Cooke, NASA's deputy associate administrator for exploration
systems, said that the space agency's revised lunar plan
calls for the launching of larger habitats to the moon on unmanned cargo
flights.

? Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Space Center.

That way, the first new lunar astronauts could begin to reap science
rewards faster than if they had to haul smaller habitat
sections and hardware to the moon on each flight, then combine them into
a larger base to support long-duration expeditions.

"We want to get scientific return. We want to get information that will
help, potentially, space commerce and we want to get
international participation early," Cooke told reporters in a
teleconference. "All of these objectives we want to address as early
in the flights as we possibly can by getting the outpost up and running
quickly."

http://www.wholeearthphonesex.com
http://www.phone-sex-psychologist.com
http://www.phone-sex-hypnosis.com
http://www.phone-sex-dictionary.com
http://www.phone-sex-handjobs.com
http://www.your-account.info
http://www.freephonesex.org
http://www.1800phonesex.net
http://www.1on1phonesex.com
http://www.phonesexphone.com
http://www.hotphone.com
http://www.xxx-rated.com

FAQ

2006-09-04T06:39:38Z

Hello,

Sorry for doubled post.
--
Best regards,
Taras Erben, Project manager
Website monitoring

FAQ

2006-09-04T06:39:25Z

Hello,

Can you tell me please where I can find FAQ about this mailng list?
 
Thanks
--
Best regards,
Taras Erben, Project manager
Website monitoring

FAQ

2006-09-04T06:39:18Z

Hello,

Can you tell me please where I can find FAQ about this mailng list?
 
Thanks
--
Best regards,
Taras Erben, Project manager
Website monitoring

Re: Meta-level requirements for RIF

2006-04-19T02:02:49Z

Adrian Walker wrote:

> Francois --
>
> At 06:43 PM 4/18/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>> Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics
>> is needed
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, there is a problem. W3C folks seem to lean strongly towards
> open world, whereas database (and most other) folks mostly use closed
> world and negation as failure.
>
> In OW, if Adrian is not in the list of people who work for W3C, you
> cannot conclude that Adrian does not work for W3C. In CW you can.
>

THis refers to nonmonotonic negation which is for the second phase.

If RIF is to be used with and as an extension to RDF, then "closed world
assumption" and "nonmonotonic negation" will be necessary -- whatebver
W3C folks lean strongly towards.

Francois

Re: Meta-level requirements for RIF

2006-04-18T13:47:03Z

Francois --

At 06:43 PM 4/18/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics
>is needed

Agreed.

However, there is a problem. W3C folks seem to lean strongly towards open
world, whereas database (and most other) folks mostly use closed world and
negation as failure.

In OW, if Adrian is not in the list of people who work for W3C, you cannot
conclude that Adrian does not work for W3C. In CW you can.

Cheers,

Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029

Re: Meta-level requirements for RIF

2006-04-18T11:14:18Z

I think you meant to send this to public-rif-wg@..., Francois.

-- Sandro

> Dear All,
>
> This is a try to clarify issues discussed today as well as again and
> again in the past. In my opinion, we rurgently need an agreement on the
> following:
>
> 1. Data (with their semantics) RIF is to access. In my opinion: RDF, XML
> and OWL -- and I would stronlgy suggest Topic Maps as well.
>
> 2. What means "rule" for RIF. In my opinion, "deduction rules",
> "normative ruyles" (aka integrity constraints), and "reactive rules" (or
> ECA rules = Event-Condition-Action rules).
> ECA rule include but are not limited to production rules. Events are
> needed for an exchange of reactive behaviour between nodes in a
> distributed context like the Web.
>
> 3. Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics
> is needed in the first place but no procedural semantics. This would
> leave interesting questions like termination (in certain cases) open. In
> my opinion, many of these questions could be resolved without specifying
> a full-fledged procedural semantics. And if some questions are left
> open, the RIF would still be very usefull in practice.
>
> François
>
>

Meta-level requirements for RIF

2006-04-18T10:43:16Z

Dear All,

This is a try to clarify issues discussed today as well as again and
again in the past. In my opinion, we rurgently need an agreement on the
following:

1. Data (with their semantics) RIF is to access. In my opinion: RDF, XML
and OWL -- and I would stronlgy suggest Topic Maps as well.

2. What means "rule" for RIF. In my opinion, "deduction rules",
"normative ruyles" (aka integrity constraints), and "reactive rules" (or
ECA rules = Event-Condition-Action rules).
ECA rule include but are not limited to production rules. Events are
needed for an exchange of reactive behaviour between nodes in a
distributed context like the Web.

3. Semantics requirement for RIF: In my opinion, a declarative semantics
is needed in the first place but no procedural semantics. This would
leave interesting questions like termination (in certain cases) open. In
my opinion, many of these questions could be resolved without specifying
a full-fledged procedural semantics. And if some questions are left
open, the RIF would still be very usefull in practice.

François

Re: [RAF] small comment on discriminator "declarative vs. procedural"

2006-02-10T07:29:42Z

someone wrote:

> If I execute rules "declaratively" I do not take account of their
ordering.

This is called, I think,"(don't care) non-determinism", not declarativity.
--
Francois

Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions

2006-02-09T06:39:15Z

Francois Bry <bry@...> wrote:
>
> Michael Kifer wrote:
>
> >IMO, it would be preferable that integrity constraint can be expressed
> >in RIF without having to be re-writen eg using the above-mentioned
> >transformation.
> >

The attribution here is wrong. I didn't write the above.
But yes, this is what Lloyd-Topor is about.

>
>
> By the way, this transformation amounts to negation:
>
> A => (B or C) |=| A & not (B or C) => false |=| not(A & not (B or C))
>
> >I think we have a consensus that we should not tackle disjunctions in the
> >heads of *deductive* rules in Phase 1.
> >
> I would prefer not to have such a restriction because it would preclude
> a natural, ie non-encoded, representation of IC, and would prevent
> handling negociations.

Then we will not have phase 1 in the foreseeable future.

--michael

Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions

2006-02-09T05:55:12Z

Michael Kifer wrote:

>IMO, it would be preferable that integrity constraint can be expressed in RIF without having to be re-writen eg using the above-mentioned transformation.
>
>

By the way, this transformation amounts to negation:

A => (B or C) |=| A & not (B or C) => false |=| not(A & not (B or C))

>I think we have a consensus that we should not tackle disjunctions in the
>heads of *deductive* rules in Phase 1.
>
I would prefer not to have such a restriction because it would preclude
a natural, ie non-encoded, representation of IC, and would prevent
handling negociations.

>Since we already discussed that RIF rulesets could be tagged with semantics
>to let the recipient understand the intended meaning, I don't see
>significant obstacles to allowing disjunctions in the heads of deductive
>rules when these are tagged with classical or stable-model semantics. The
>recipient engine can reject such rules, if it doesn't have an engine to
>process them.
>
>
+1

Francois

Re: RIF liason to Web Services Choreography?

2006-02-03T06:57:19Z

Vincent, Paul D wrote:

>IMHO: RIF and WE-Choreography are orthogonal (RIF could be a payload between choreographed web services).
>For rules that assist with choreography decisions (eg load balancing, QOS, content-based routing etc) there is no (special) interchange requirement.
>
>
I agree.

--
Francois

Re: [RIF] backward vs forward chaining [was some other subject]

2006-02-03T01:32:06Z

doug foxvog wrote:

>Do you mean the procedural semantics should be defined for each rule,
>
surely not. I would not make much sense.

>or
>that one procedural semantics (backward chaining) should be defined for
>all rules?
>
>
for rulesets.

>Aren't we considering contexts here? Parts of the web that are not in
>the context in which the question is asked are not applicable for the
>answer.
>
Considering contexts is good if one can. Very often on the web, contexts
are not konwn before hand. This is one of (the?) essential difference
between the web and hypertext systems considered before the web.

>A context would include that of the included knowledge bases
>and that of all (recursively) referenced ontologies as well as specified
>other areas of the web.
>
With recursive references, one can soon get a huge number of web sites
-- eg too large for a given evaluation strategy.

>Someone's knowledge base using my ontology
>doesn't necessatate my access to that knowledge base.
>
>
It depends on how "access" and "using" are defined.

>What forward chaining would mean is that forward rules fire when they
>are asserted or when an outside ontology or knowledge base accesses an
>ontology with a forward rule. The conclusions are then available
>whenever a question is asked.
>
This is forward chaining with memoing, ie a common approach. It is often
impracticable for size reasons or if the data are frequently updated.
Those cases where it is not practicable are the interesting ones from a
research viewepoint, I beleive.

>Backward chaining requires the execution
>of backward rules when the question is asked.
>
>
Pre-evaluated questions with saved answers can be considered. But, you
are right, the standard approach to backward chsaining it at query time.
In a distributed and chanuigng world, furthermore without agreements on
when something is changed, this is one of the appealing features of
backward chaining.

>>>>My point was that forward chaining inherently requires to start
>>>>computing from all web sites that might be involved. Either those web
>>>>sites are known and limited in number -- and this is fine -- or not
>>>>-- and forward chaining is impracticable.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>True, but backward chaining also impracticable if the number of sites to
>chain over are not known or unlimited in number for queries that are not
>answered completely within a more limited context.
>
>

Right. In addition, on the web there are rules that are inherently
inappropriate for backward chaining, cf (1) (like some other rules are
inherently inappropriate for forward chaining, cf (2)). If I understand
well, this is what you (Douglas) mentioned.

(1) interesting(A) :- link-from-to(B, A), interesting(B)
(2) interesting(A) :- link-from-to(A, B), interesting(B)

Remark: in both examples html-like links, not XLink-like generalized
links, are considered.
--
Francois

Re: [RIF] backward vs forward chaining [was some other subject]

2006-02-02T12:14:18Z

[...]

> XSB takes a step in this direction, with 'tabling'. Magic Sets, and
> Backchain Iteration [1], exploit the approach more fully**.
>
> Cheers, -- Adrian
>
>
> [1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
> Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of
> Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22.
>
> ** I'm guessing that Euler does this too. Right Jos ?

I'm still learning that we should do it less fully :)
but more like connected least powered engines...
euler is more like a simple webized prolog engine [1]
and the python version is even simpler, but evolving.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

[1] http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/FAQ

Re: [RIF] backward vs forward chaining [was some other subject]

2006-02-02T07:16:26Z

Bonjour Francois and All --

Good to see that the backward and forward debate continues... (:-)

It's been known for quite a while that one can get the best of both worlds,
_and_ a more declarative treatment of the rules, by combining both methods
automatically in one engine.

Backchaining then keeps the focus on results (and in future, on web data
items) that are actually needed, while forward chaining with asserted
lemmas stops the engine from deriving the same sub-result more than once.

XSB takes a step in this direction, with 'tabling'. Magic Sets, and
Backchain Iteration [1], exploit the approach more fully**.

Cheers, -- Adrian

[1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of
Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22.

** I'm guessing that Euler does this too. Right Jos ?

Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029

At 03:02 PM 2/2/2006 +0100, you wrote:

>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>>From: Francois Bry <bry@...>
>>Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:51:58 +0100
>>
>>
>>
>>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Michael Kifer <kifer@...>
>>>>Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:03:06 -0500
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Francois Bry <bry@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree that RIF should have (1) a clear declarative semantics and
>>>>>>(2) in addition support conveying *some* *limited* specifications of
>>>>>>procedural semantics (eg backward chaining is intended because with
>>>>>>forward chaining the considered rules would require to process
>>>>>>all/too many nodes on the Web).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree with that, especially with the statement that "with forward
>>>>>chaining the considered rules would require to process all/too many nodes
>>>>>on the Web".
>>>>>
>>>>+[some very large number]
>>>>
>>>>What makes "forward chaining" a particularly bad method, even if you
>>>>think of
>>>>forward chaining as a way to perform saturation? Forward chaining
>>>>(including
>>>>saturation, or not) works exceedingly well in some situations (and
>>>>exceedingly
>>>>poorly in others). Standard backward chaining has exactly the same
>>>>characteristics, by the way. It all depends on the situation, and the
>>>>parameters used to control the chaining.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>My point was that forward chaining inherently requires to start
>>>computing from all web sites that might be involved. Either those web
>>>sites are known and limited in number -- and this is fine -- or not --
>>>and forward chaining is impracticable.
>>>
>>>-- Francois
>>>
>>
>>I don't follow this. Why would anyone want to start with "all web sites that
>>might be involved"? This seems to be a recipe for disaster no matter what
>>reasoning methodology is used.
>>
>>In any case, what is it about "forward chaining" that requires this universal
>>reach more than any other evaluation methodology? Couldn't I just say
>>the same
>>thing about "backward chaining"? What makes
>>
>> My point was that backward chaining inherently requires to start
>> computing from all web sites that might be involved.
>>
>>any less true than what you said?
>>
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>
>Think of rule specifying interesting web pages as follows, with
>
>interesting(A) :- computer-science(A).
>interesting(A) :- link(A, B), interesting(B).
>
>meaning, a web page ist interesting if it has a Computer Science content
>or a link to an "interesting" page.
>
>Assume one asks whether www.example.ex is interesting. With backward
>chaining, the evaluation starts with the query
>"interesting(www.example.ex)" and propagate backwards the binding,yielding
>the intermediate queries:
>
>link(www.example.ex, B), interesting(B)
>interesting(www.mycom.com) if A has a link to www.mycom.com
>etc.
>
>With forwards chaining, the evaluation starts with the queries
>"computer-science(A)" ie checking all web pages for Computer Science
>content, then following the links from all web page with CS contents, etc.
>
>Thus, backward or forward chaining make a difference, as far as the number
>of pages accessed is concerned.
>
>Francois
>
>

Re: [RIF] backward vs forward chaining [was some other subject]

2006-02-02T07:03:02Z

Francois Bry wrote:
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> From: Francois Bry <bry@...>
>> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:51:58 +0100
>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> From: Michael Kifer <kifer@...>
>>>> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:03:06 -0500
>>>>> Francois Bry <bry@...> wrote:

>>>>>> I agree that RIF should have (1) a clear declarative semantics and
>>>>>> (2) in addition support conveying *some* *limited* specifications
>>>>>> of procedural semantics (eg backward chaining is intended because
>>>>>> with forward chaining the considered rules would require to
>>>>>> process all/too many nodes on the Web).

Do you mean the procedural semantics should be defined for each rule, or
that one procedural semantics (backward chaining) should be defined for
all rules?

>>>>> I disagree with that, especially with the statement that "with forward
>>>>> chaining the considered rules would require to process all/too many
>>>>> nodes
>>>>> on the Web".

>>>> +[some very large number]

Aren't we considering contexts here? Parts of the web that are not in
the context in which the question is asked are not applicable for the
answer. A context would include that of the included knowledge bases
and that of all (recursively) referenced ontologies as well as specified
other areas of the web. Someone's knowledge base using my ontology
doesn't necessatate my access to that knowledge base.

What forward chaining would mean is that forward rules fire when they
are asserted or when an outside ontology or knowledge base accesses an
ontology with a forward rule. The conclusions are then available
whenever a question is asked. Backward chaining requires the execution
of backward rules when the question is asked.

>>>> What makes "forward chaining" a particularly bad method, even if you
>>>> think of
>>>> forward chaining as a way to perform saturation? Forward chaining
>>>> (including
>>>> saturation, or not) works exceedingly well in some situations (and
>>>> exceedingly
>>>> poorly in others). Standard backward chaining has exactly the same
>>>> characteristics, by the way. It all depends on the situation, and the
>>>> parameters used to control the chaining.

Agreed.

>>> My point was that forward chaining inherently requires to start
>>> computing from all web sites that might be involved. Either those web
>>> sites are known and limited in number -- and this is fine -- or not
>>> -- and forward chaining is impracticable.

True, but backward chaining also impracticable if the number of sites to
chain over are not known or unlimited in number for queries that are not
answered completely within a more limited context.

>>> --
>>> Francois

>> I don't follow this. Why would anyone want to start with "all web
>> sites that
>> might be involved"? This seems to be a recipe for disaster no matter
>> what
>> reasoning methodology is used.

>> In any case, what is it about "forward chaining" that requires this
>> universal
>> reach more than any other evaluation methodology? Couldn't I just say
>> the same
>> thing about "backward chaining"? What makes

>> My point was that backward chaining inherently requires to start
>> computing from all web sites that might be involved.

>> any less true than what you said?

>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider

> Think of rule specifying interesting web pages as follows, with

> interesting(A) :- computer-science(A).
> interesting(A) :- link(A, B), interesting(B).

> meaning, a web page ist interesting if it has a Computer Science content
> or a link to an "interesting" page.

> Assume one asks whether www.example.ex is interesting. With backward
> chaining, the evaluation starts with the query
> "interesting(www.example.ex)" and propagate backwards the
> binding,yielding the intermediate queries:

> link(www.example.ex, B), interesting(B)
> interesting(www.mycom.com) if A has a link to www.mycom.com
> etc.

Here, the system needs to know that "link" is an evaluatable predicate
for its second argument and to bind B before asking "interesting(B)".
If the system searched the web to prove "link(www.example.ex, B)" or
searched for "interesting(B)" before proving "link(www.example.ex, B)"
you wouldn't have the efficiency noted.

> With forwards chaining, the evaluation starts with the queries
> "computer-science(A)" ie checking all web pages for Computer Science
> content, then following the links from all web page with CS contents, etc.

Actually, this happens long before the query. If the rules are forward,
then when the query is made the answer is just extracted from an already
generated set (effectively table) of interesting pages.

And "all web pages" are not necessarily checked at assert time. The
extent of the "computer-science" class/unary predicate is checked. If
a forward rule exists for "computer-science(C)" that searches the whole
web and performs natural language proccesing on each page, then that
rule being forward with that method is a problem, not the forward rule
that you gave.

Note that if the definition of interesting was that anything that linked
to a "computer-science" page was interesting, then backward chaining
would not be efficient, because "link(A, www.example.ex)" cannot be
efficiently determined in a backward fashion.

interesting(A) :- computer-science(A).
interesting(A) :- link(B, A), interesting(B).

> Thus, backward or forward chaining make a difference, as far as the
> number of pages accessed is concerned.

It does make a difference. And which requires more page accesses
depends upon the rule.

> Francois

==========================================================
douglas foxvog doug.foxvog@... +353 (91) 495 150
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
National University of Ireland, Galway
Galway, Ireland http://www.deri.ie
==========================================================

Re: [RIF] backward vs forward chaining [was some other subject]

2006-02-02T06:02:49Z

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>From: Francois Bry <bry@...>
>Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:51:58 +0100
>
>
>
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Michael Kifer <kifer@...>
>>>Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:03:06 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Francois Bry <bry@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree that RIF should have (1) a clear declarative semantics and (2)
>>>>>in addition support conveying *some* *limited* specifications of
>>>>>procedural semantics (eg backward chaining is intended because with
>>>>>forward chaining the considered rules would require to process all/too
>>>>>many nodes on the Web).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I disagree with that, especially with the statement that "with forward
>>>>chaining the considered rules would require to process all/too many nodes
>>>>on the Web".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>+[some very large number]
>>>
>>>What makes "forward chaining" a particularly bad method, even if you think of
>>>forward chaining as a way to perform saturation? Forward chaining (including
>>>saturation, or not) works exceedingly well in some situations (and exceedingly
>>>poorly in others). Standard backward chaining has exactly the same
>>>characteristics, by the way. It all depends on the situation, and the
>>>parameters used to control the chaining.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>My point was that forward chaining inherently requires to start
>>computing from all web sites that might be involved. Either those web
>>sites are known and limited in number -- and this is fine -- or not --
>>and forward chaining is impracticable.
>>
>>--
>>Francois
>>
>>
>
>I don't follow this. Why would anyone want to start with "all web sites that
>might be involved"? This seems to be a recipe for disaster no matter what
>reasoning methodology is used.
>
>In any case, what is it about "forward chaining" that requires this universal
>reach more than any other evaluation methodology? Couldn't I just say the same
>thing about "backward chaining"? What makes
>
> My point was that backward chaining inherently requires to start
> computing from all web sites that might be involved.
>
>any less true than what you said?
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>
>

Think of rule specifying interesting web pages as follows, with

interesting(A) :- computer-science(A).
interesting(A) :- link(A, B), interesting(B).

meaning, a web page ist interesting if it has a Computer Science content
or a link to an "interesting" page.

Assume one asks whether www.example.ex is interesting. With backward
chaining, the evaluation starts with the query
"interesting(www.example.ex)" and propagate backwards the
binding,yielding the intermediate queries:

link(www.example.ex, B), interesting(B)
interesting(www.mycom.com) if A has a link to www.mycom.com
etc.

With forwards chaining, the evaluation starts with the queries
"computer-science(A)" ie checking all web pages for Computer Science
content, then following the links from all web page with CS contents, etc.

Thus, backward or forward chaining make a difference, as far as the
number of pages accessed is concerned.

Francois

Well Specified Semantics for a Rule Engine

2006-01-26T07:15:01Z

Dave --

At 09:09 AM 1/26/2006 +0000, you wrote on [jena-dev]:
>Until recently my hope was that the new RIF working group would develop
>a standardized rule language suitable for RDF with a well specified
>semantics. We would have then considered migrating Jena to support that
>core, though we would likely still need procedural extensions to cover
>our own use cases. That's now less likely given the actual focus of RIF
>but we haven't decided on a plan B yet.

For the well specified semantics Plan B, you may like to consider the
approach in:

Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
Simple Enough to be
Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning,
11:1-22.

The paper describes a model-theoretic semantics for what an engine _should_
do, and an engine that is proved to do that.

The paper is hard to find on the web, but if this is of interest, I'll be
glad to send you a scanned in .doc version. Let me know.

The engine in the Internet Business Logic system is based on the one in the
paper.

HTH. Cheers,

-- Adrian

PS: www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 may also be of interest

PPS: Apologies for cross-posting, but this topic really impacts a lot of
future SW stuff

Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029

intro

2005-11-20T02:17:12Z

Hi, just thought I'd join and see if i can learn something...

Anthony Ettinger
ph: (408) 656-2473
web: http://www.apwebdesign.com