Moreover, 2 keynote and 2 tutorial papers were invited. Most regular papers were presented in one of these tracks: Smart Contracts, Blockchain, and Rules, Constraint Handling Rules, Event Driven Architectures and Active Database Systems, Legal Rules and Reasoning, Rule-and Ontology-Based Data Access and Transformation, Rule Induction, and Learning. Following up on previous years, RuleML also hosted the 6th RuleML Doctoral Consortium and the 10th International Rule Challenge, which this year was dedicated to applications of rule-based reasoning, such as Rules in Retail, Rules in Tourism, Rules in Transportation, Rules in Geography, Rules in Location-Based Search, Rules in Insurance Regulation, Rules in Medicine, and Rules in Ecosystem Research. The 10th International Rule Challenge Awards went to Ingmar Dasseville, Laurent Janssens, Gerda Janssens, Jan Vanthienen, and Marc Denecker, for their paper Combining DMN and the Knowledge Base Paradigm for Flexible Decision Enactment, and Jacob Feldman for his paper What-If Analyzer for DMN-based Decision Models. As in previous years, RuleML 2016 was also a place for presentations and face-to-face meetings about rule technology standardizations, which this year Mark Your Calendars!

For over twenty-five years Ford Motor Company has been utilizing an AI-based system to manage process planning for vehicle assembly at its assembly plants around the world. The scope of the AI system, known originally as the Direct Labor Management System and now as the Global Study Process Allocation System (GSPAS), has increased over the years to include additional functionality on Ergonomics and Powertrain Assembly (Engines and Transmission plants). The knowledge about Ford’s manufacturing processes is contained in an ontology originally developed using the KL-ONE representation language and methodology. To preserve the viability of the GSPAS ontology and to make it easily usable for other applications within Ford, we needed to re-engineer and convert the KL-ONE ontology into a semantic web OWL/RDF format. In this article, we will discuss the process by which we re-engineered the existing GSPAS KL-ONE ontology and deployed semantic web technology in our application.

There are endless discussions on the databases arena about which DBMS is best suited for operational or data warehousing analytics, which one is the most efficient for online transaction processing, or which one is suitable for semantic integration. Recently graph databases are growing in popularity, especially in the enterprise space, and perhaps that adds more headache on those vendors that try to differentiate from competition and on those clients that are completely uncertain how to embrace this database technology. Recently Bloor published a report about Graph and RDF Databases. The author, Philip Howard, claims that "the difference between a true graph product and a triple store is that the former supports index free adjacency (which means you can traverse a graph without needing an index) and the latter doesn't". On the contrary Weinberger, CEO of ArrangoDB, argues that this is not a fundamental criterion on what is a graph database.

User preference integration is of great importance in multi-objective optimization, in particular in many objective optimization. Preferences have long been considered in traditional multicriteria decision making (MCDM) which is based on mathematical programming. Recently, it is integrated in multi-objective metaheuristics (MOMH), resulting in focus on preferred parts of the Pareto front instead of the whole Pareto front. The number of publications on preference-based multi-objective metaheuristics has increased rapidly over the past decades. There already exist various preference handling methods and MOMH methods, which have been combined in diverse ways. This article proposes to use the Web Ontology Language (OWL) to model and systematize the results developed in this field. A review of the existing work is provided, based on which an ontology is built and instantiated with state-of-the-art results. The OWL ontology is made public and open to future extension. Moreover, the usage of the ontology is exemplified for different use-cases, including querying for methods that match an engineering application, bibliometric analysis, checking existence of combinations of preference models and MOMH techniques, and discovering opportunities for new research and open research questions.

This paper is a tutorial on Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) and its applications. FCA is an applied branch of Lattice Theory, a mathematical discipline which enables formalisation of concepts as basic units of human thinking and analysing data in the object-attribute form. Originated in early 80s, during the last three decades, it became a popular human-centred tool for knowledge representation and data analysis with numerous applications. Since the tutorial was specially prepared for RuS-SIR 2014, the covered FCA topics include Information Retrieval with a focus on visualisation aspects, Machine Learning, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Text Mining and several others.

Chandrasekaran B.,Josephson J.R., Benjamins V. R., (1999) What Are Ontologies, and Why Do We Need Them?

An Ontology model provides much the same information, except a data model is specifically related to data only. The data model provides entities that will become tables in a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS), and the attributes will become columns with specific data types and constraints, and the relationships will be identifying and nonidentifying foreign key constraints. What a data model does not provide is a machine-interpretable definition of the vocabulary in a specific domain. Data Models will not contain vocabulary that defines the entire domain, but rather the data dictionary will contain information on the entities and attributes associated with a specific data element. This is where ontologies come in.

Peer review is the process by which experts in some discipline comment on the quality of the works of others in that discipline. Peer review of written works is firmly embedded in current academic research practice where it is positioned as the gateway process and quality control mechanism for submissions to conferences, journals, and funding bodies across a wide range of disciplines. It is probably safe to assume that peer review in some form will remain a cornerstone of academic practice for years to come, evidence-based criticisms of this process in computer science22,32,45 and other disciplines23,28 notwithstanding. While parts of the academic peer review process have been streamlined in the last few decades to take technological advances into account, there are many more opportunities for computational support that are not currently being exploited. The aim of this article is to identify such opportunities and describe a few early solutions for automating key stages in the established academic peer review process. When developing these solutions we have found it useful to build on our background in machine learning and artificial intelligence: in particular, we utilize a feature-based perspective in which the handcrafted features on which conventional peer review usually depends (for example, keywords) can be improved by feature weighting, selection, and construction (see Flach17 for a broader perspective on the role and importance of features in machine learning). Twenty-five years ago, at the start of our academic careers, submitting a paper to a conference was a fairly involved and time-consuming process that roughly went as follows: Once an author had produced the manuscript (in the original sense, that is, manually produced on a typewriter, possibly by someone from the university's pool of typists), he or she would make up to seven photocopies, stick all of them in a large envelope, and send them to the program chair of the conference, taking into account that international mail would take 3–5 days to arrive. On their end, the program chair would receive all those envelopes, allocate the papers to the various members of the program committee, and send them out for review by mail in another batch of big envelopes. Reviews would be completed by hand on paper and mailed back or brought to the program committee meeting. Finally, notifications and reviews would be sent back by the program chair to the authors by mail. Submissions to journals would follow a very similar process.

We advocate datalogMTL, a datalog extension of a Horn fragment of the metric temporal logic MTL, as a language for ontology-based access to temporal log data. We show that datalogMTL is EXPSPACE-complete even with punctual intervals, in which case MTL is known to be undecidable. Nonrecursive datalogMTL turns out to be PSPACE-complete for combined complexity and in AC0 for data complexity. We demonstrate by two real-world use cases that nonrecursive datalogMTL programs can express complex temporal concepts from typical user queries and thereby facilitate access to log data. Our experiments with Siemens turbine data and MesoWest weather data show that datalogMTL ontology-mediated queries are efficient and scale on large datasets of up to 11GB.

We demonstrate an integrated system for building and learning models and structures in both a real and virtual environment. The system combines natural language understanding, planning, and methods for composition of basic concepts into more complicated concepts. The user and the system interact via natural language to jointly plan and execute tasks involving building structures, with clarifications and demonstrations to teach the system along the way. We use the same architecture for building and simulating models of biology, demonstrating the general-purpose nature of the system where domain-specific knowledge is concentrated in sub-modules with the basic interaction remaining domain-independent. These capabilities are supported by our work on semantic parsing, which generates knowledge structures to be grounded in a physical representation, and composed with existing knowledge to create a dynamic plan for completing goals. Prior work on learning from natural language demonstrations enables learning of models from very few demonstrations, and features are extracted from definitions in natural language. We believe this architecture for interaction opens up a wide possibility of human-computer interaction and knowledge transfer through natural language.