<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>You can watch davide's github user and follow him<br><br><div>- CTO @ <a href="http://www.plugtree.com">http://www.plugtree.com</a></div><div>- MyJourney @ <a href="http://salaboy.wordpress.com">http://salaboy.wordpress.com</a></div><div>- Co-Founder @ <a href="http://www.jbug.com.ar">http://www.jbug.com.ar</a></div>- Mauricio "Salaboy" Salatino -</div><div><br>On 18/02/2012, at 06:21, Anton Hughes <<a href="mailto:kurrent93@gmail.com">kurrent93@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi Anton,<br>
I'm (un)officially in charge of the topic. Right now I have identified the<br>
following topics/tasks, feel free to ask for more details on any one of<br>
them:<br>
<br>
1) Use the ontology to create a fact model to write rules with : I'm<br>
perfecting the tool even now, in a few days the alpha version will be<br>
available for testing.<br>
It's meant to be pretty flexible, support many persistency techniques,<br>
provide convenience methods and will be integrated with the recent<br>
"traiting" (dynamic typing) technique.<br>
It makes some (reasonable) assumptions on the ontology, and would need use<br>
cases and consolidations.<br>
<br>
1b) Once the fact model is there, we'd have to instantiate the individuals<br>
in the ontology as facts<br>
1c) We have a side project to make this compatible with guvnor, to edit<br>
"semantically constrained" rules.<br>
<br>
2) Use the definitions in the ontology to create classification rules. Would<br>
be "rule-style", in close world assumptions. My feeling is that it would<br>
create an execution framework for a SPIN-like language (or, if you prefer, a<br>
DRL version of the SPIN framework).<br>
I haven't started it yet, but could be done in a relatively few days<br>
<br>
3) Use the definitions in the ontology to create a rule-based,<br>
object-oriented semantic reasoner. A proof of concept for a fuzzy semantic<br>
reasoner exists, but that definitely is on the TODO list. Help, as always,<br>
is appreciated :)<br>
This would be a necessary complement to the fact model, to ensure it's kept<br>
consistent with the ontology.<br>
<br><br></blockquote><div>Hi Davide</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, the work youre doing sounds really exciting and promising!</div><div><br></div><div>I would very much like to follow your progress, and, if I can, help out. </div>
<div><br></div><div>What is the best way to follow the progress of this project?</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div>Anton</div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>rules-users mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org">rules-users@lists.jboss.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>