RuleML+RR 2017: Call for Tutorials

January 13, 2017 8:20 PM
Tutorials may introduce novices to major topics in the area, introduce experts to a special subarea, motivate and explain a topic of emerging importance, survey a mature area of research and/or practice, present a novel synthesis combining distinct lines of work, introduce the audience to an external topic that can relate to research in the area on a relevant topic.

Tutorial attendance is complimentary for all RuleML+RR 2017 conference registrants.


Tutorial proposals should be submitted via Easychair:

Each submission (up to two pages) should include the following information:

  • A title.
  • An abstract.
  • The preferred duration (up to half-day).
  • A description that outlines which topics would be covered, and the depth to which they would be covered. If different length options are possible, the proposal should identify which parts would be included for each length.
  • A short description of the intended audience and any prerequisite knowledge for attendees.
  • A brief biography of the proposed presenter(s), along with contact information.
  • If (part of) the tutorial material or an earlier version of it has been presented elsewhere, the proposal should indicate those respective events (and dates), and describe how the current proposal differs from the previous ones.

A two-page extended abstract of the tutorial will be included in the conference proceedings. Tutorial slides are expected to be made available online to conference participants.


Proposal submission: 20 January 2017

Notification: 6 February 2017

Camera-ready due: 24 April 2017

Possible tutorial dates: 12, 13, 14, 15 July 2017


The RuleML+RR 2017 program chairs: Stefania Costantini (University of L’Aquila, Italy), Enrico Franconi (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy), William Van Woensel (Dalhousie University, Canada);

The RuleML+RR 2017 General Chairs: Roman Kontchakov (Birkbeck, University of London, UK), Fariba Sadri (Imperial College London, UK);

Publicity Chair: Giovanni De Gasperis (University of L'Aquila, Italy).

CfP: RuleML+RR 2017: International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning

October 20, 2016 7:09 PM
This leading international joint conference in the field of rule-based reasoning calls for high-quality papers related to theoretical advances, novel technologies, and innovative applications concerning knowledge representation and reasoning with rules. The event will take place on 12-15 July 2017 in London.

Stemming from the synergy between the well-known high-impact RuleML and RR events, one of the main goals of this conference is to build bridges between academia and industry.

RuleML+RR 2017 aims to bring together rigorous researchers and inventive practitioners, interested in the foundations and applications of rules and reasoning in academia, industry, engineering, business, finance, healthcare and other application areas. It will provide a forum for stimulating cooperation and cross-fertilization between the many different communities focused on the research, development and applications of rule-based systems.

In addition to regular submissions, RuleML+RR 2017 will host the 11th International Rule Challenge, a Doctoral Consortium, an Industry Track, and the 13th Reasoning Web Summer School. Please note that separate submission guidelines apply for these additional events; they will be made available on a later date at the conference web site.


Topics include, but are not limited to:

  •  Production rules systems
  •  Logic programming engines and applications
  •  Business rules engines and management systems
  •  Logic-based reasoning for rules
  •  Inductive and abductive logic programming
  •  Rule markup languages and rule interchange formats
  •  Rule-based policies, reputation, and trust
  •  Pragmatic web reasoning and distributed rule inference / rule execution
  •  Reaction and ECA rules
  •  Constraint programming
  •  Rule-based languages for intelligent information access and the Semantic Web
  •  Vocabularies, ontologies, and business rules
  •  Bridge rules in multi-context systems
  •  Rule discovery, extraction and transformation
  •  Rule-based data management, data integration, and data interoperability
  •  Scalability and expressive power of logics for rules
  •  Mapping rules for ontology-based data access
  •  Rule-based dynamic data, stream, and complex event processing
  •  Reasoning with incomplete, inconsistent and uncertain data
  •  Non-monotonic, common-sense, and closed-world reasoning
  •  Non-classical logics and the Web
  •  Combining rules with knowledge extraction and information retrieval
  •  Rules, agents, and norms
  •  Rule-based distributed / multi-agent systems
  •  Rule-based communication/dialogue
  •  Argumentation models
  •  Rules and human language technology
  •  Rules in online market research and online marketing
  •  Applications of rule technologies in healthcare and life sciences
  •  Industrial applications of rules
  •  Rules and business process compliance checking
  •  Standards activities related to rules
  •  Rules and social media



Papers must be original contributions written in English and must be submitted at as:


  • Full Paper (15 pages in the proceedings)
  • Short Paper (8 pages in the proceedings)


Please upload all submissions in LNCS format. To ensure high quality, submitted papers will be carefully peer-reviewed by at least 3 PC members based on originality, significance, technical soundness, and clarity of exposition. They must not substantially overlap with papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or a conference / workshop with formal proceedings

The accepted papers will be published in book form in the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series. Short papers may contain 1 extra page (max.) for which there is a charge of US$200. Long papers are allowed 2 extra pages (max.), with a charge of US$200 for EACH extra page.


Student Travel Support

Some financial support will be available to enable student authors to travel to the conference. These will be awarded on a case-by-case basis. Proof of studentship will be required at time of registration.


Important dates




Title and abstract registration:

15 February 2017


Paper submission:

22 February 2017


Author feedback on initial reviews:

30 March - 3 April 2017


Author notification:

10 April 2017


Camera ready:

24 April 2017



12-15 July 2017


11th International Rule Challenge

The RuleML+RR 2017 Challenge is one of the highlights of the conference, and seeks to provide competition among innovative rule-oriented applications, aimed at both the research and industrial side. Submissions may present demos related to the RR+RuleML 2017 track topics (see below), supply benchmarks and comparison results for rule engines, illustrate rule- and model-driven engineering, report on industrial experience, present real cases and practical experiences, and realize mobile deployment of rule-based reasoning.


Doctoral Consortium

We welcome submissions from PhD students whose research activity is closely related to rule and reasoning systems. The Doctoral Consortium is an excellent opportunity for students to interact with leading experts in the field, and to present and discuss their ideas in a dynamic and friendly setting.


Industry Track

The Industry Track targets businesses and the private sector interested in sharing, exploring, and learning about the use of rule technologies for solving real-life business problems, for instance in the field of logistics, planning, domotics, healthcare, big data and high- scalability reasoning, and financial applications including high-frequency trading.


13th Reasoning Web Summer School (RW 2017)

The purpose of the Reasoning Web Summer School is to disseminate recent advances on reasoning techniques which are of particular interest to Semantic Web, Linked Data, Ontologies, Rules, Logic, and Knowledge Graph applications. It is primarily intended for postgraduate (PhD or MSc) students, postdoctoral researchers, young researchers, and senior researchers wishing to learn about Reasoning on the Semantic Web and related issues.

The Reasoning Web series of annual Summer Schools was started in 2005 by the European Network of Excellence REWERSE.




With kind regards,


RuleML+RR 2017 Program Chairs

Stefania Costantini, University of L’Aquila, Italy

Enrico Franconi, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

William Van Woensel, Dalhousie University, Canada


RuleML+RR 2017 General Chairs

Roman Kontchakov, Birkbeck, University of London, UK

Fariba Sadri, Imperial College London, UK

RuleML 2016 Report

September 9, 2016 4:02 PM
The 10th International Web Rule Symposium (RuleML 2016) was held at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA, July 6-9, 2016. A total number of 68 papers were submitted from which 18 full papers, 2 short papers, 3 industry papers, 7 challenge papers and 3 Doctoral Consortium papers were selected. 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.

This year’s symposium featured four invited keynote and tutorial talks (click to watch on Youtube):

As a novelty this year, there was a highly successful co-location between RuleML 2016 and DecisionCAMP 2016, facilitated by Jacob Feldman and colleagues. A total number of 132 participants attended both conferences and the affiliated sub-events. The co-location was a great opportunity for the rule-based community and the industrial decision-modeling community to mingle at one of the several joint events such as: the joint reception and conference dinner at the Hilton Garden Hotel on, respectively, Tuesday July 6 and Thursday July 8; the joint keynote by Bruce Silver; the joint tutorial by Neng-Fa Zhou; and the RuleML industry session on Friday, July 9.

The RuleML 2016 Best Paper Awards were given to:

  • Iliano Cervesato, Edmund Soon Lee Lam and Ali Elgazar for their paper "Choreographic Compilation of Decentralized Comprehension Patterns", and
  • Ho-Pun Lam, Mustafa Hashmi and Brendan Scofield for their paper "Enabling Reasoning with LegalRuleML".


Iliano Cervesato presenting Choreographic Compilation of Decentralized Comprehension Patterns



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".


Ingmar Dasseville presenting Combining DMN and the Knowledge Base Paradigm for Flexible Decision Enactment


Jacob Feldman. 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 covered RuleML 1.02 (System of Families of Languages and Knowledge-Interoperation Hub) and DMN 1.1 (OMG DMN RTF).


Adrian Paschke. A RuleML - DMN Translator
Harold Boley. The RuleML Knowledge-Interoperation Hub
Daniel Selman. Decision Management at the Speed of Events


Details about the RuleML and DecisionCAMP 2016 programs etc. can be found via, the Springer proceedings at, the CEUR proceedings at, and RuleML Youtube channel videos at

We would like to thank our sponsors, whose contributions allowed us to cover the costs of student participants and invited/keynote speakers. We would also like to thank all the people who have contributed to the success of this year’s special RuleML 2016 and co-located events, including the organization chairs, PC members, authors, speakers, and participants.

The RuleML community will join forces in 2017 with the RR (Web Reasoning and Rule Systems) community for the joint conference: RuleML+RR 2017: International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning, under the leadership of Fariba Sadri and Roman Kontchakov.

See you all next year at RuleML+RR 2017 in London, UK.


Paul Fodor (General Chair), Guido Governatori (Program Co-Chair), Jose Julio Alferes (Program Co-Chair), Leopoldo Bertossi (Program Co-Chair).


Contact info: Paul Fodor, Computer Science Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA,

Rules – the necessary frames for creativity

September 6, 2016 9:35 AM
In this blogpost I will explore how rules can aid the creative process. Often seen as limiting factor, whether self-imposed, physical constraints or administered by others, rules can also act as the foundation upon which the creative process is built; within rules, limitation can turn into opportunity.

Indeed, it is my premise here that rules might not be antithetical to creativity and instead facilitate it. If there is no frame to create within, there can be no creativity and rules are meant to set these frames. As I will explore in the following, various creative practices have their own ‘rules’ where skilled creators cultivate habits and routines precisely in order to work creatively. This ‘Janus head’ – the dialectic relationship between rules and creativity – will be explored from the perspective of a socio-material and distributed approach to creativity (Tanggaard, 2013; Glăveanu, 2014). I will use examples from the creative practice of photography but I will venture that the distinctions and conclusions are as relevant for any creative domain – including that of Artificial Intelligence.


Main take-aways:

  • Rules are not antithetical to creativity and might instead facilitate creativity
  • Know thyself – and the rules
  • Rules can be both constraints and/or conventions
  • We should cultivate a heigthened attention to rules
  • Rules can be the frames needed to create and grow rather than a nuisance to be endured


In a recent book chapter (Juelsbo 2016) I wrote about creative processes and rules. Being a trained photographer I wanted to explore my old practice of professional photography from a creativity research perspective. Having recently returned to shooting with analogue cameras and Leica cameras I had seen a qualitative lift in my output. I simply produced better pictures when I used old cameras and ones with fewer options compared to my usual digital setup. Why was this? For years I had chased technical excellence and it had worked up until a point. When I was invited to contribute to a new anthology on creativity, I decided that I wanted to write about the rules governing the fields of creative practices and to see, if I could grasp why I became a better photographer when I played by other rules. So far so good. The Leica camera was sitting on my desk as I wrote the chapter and now again writing this post. It looks heavy, worn around the edges and like something from another era. Picking it up forces me to become re-accustomed with its heft and the limited opportunities I have to control it via its 4-5 buttons and dials. It does as much to me as a photographer as I do to it.

From the perspective of socio-materiality research on creativity, an item like a camera is not a passive medium for us to manipulate or control – it’s very much a substantial component of creativity that actively co-constructs or mediates what the photographer is able to create. Elaborating on previous and current researches that sought to establish context, social practices and the environment as more than ‘a bowl to the soup’, a neutral container for individuals (Lave, 2011; Lave & Wenger, 1991), socio-materiality designates a heightened focus on the objects and artifacts we surround ourselves with. The artifacts invite us to engage in certain practices and these practices become physical manifestation of the rules afforded in turn by the artifacts.

When I saw the working table of another photographer, award winning Jan Grarup, in my Facebook feed, I was surprised to find an old analogue Leica camera amongst all his digital stuff: Wires and chargers all over, two screens, Macbook Pro, external drives – and then this old dingy camera sitting next to a few rolls of film. It was hard to make sense of and I had to ask him why he would deliberately handicap himself in this day and age when he was dependent on speed and getting his shots from war and conflict zones asap to the editors of, e.g., New York Times. In his words it enabled him to focus on the essential: Getting the best shot.

To explain how humans and artifacts interact dynamically in the practice of photography, we can turn to Gibson’s notion of affordances. The analogue camera, using physical films that needs to be loaded into it, affords us certain actions and not others, ‘affecting’ us in a similar manner to how we ‘affect’ it through manipulation. The constraints offered by the camera become subtle manifestations of material-imposed rules springing from the granted affordances. In this way, the photographer and the chosen camera become an inseparable and interdependent whole (Latour, 2005). This intersection between human doing and knowing represents a flexible engagement with the world, entailing open-ended processes of improvisation with the social, material, and experiential resources at hand.

Shooting analogue film, you manipulate a tangible thing – a celluloid strip of negative imprinted with light and you work with an immediate sense of materiality. Digital photographers have by and large become digital symbol manipulators, but returning to old practices we honor the fundamental knowledge of the tangible. This fundamental understanding of how our tools work is important in helping us understand our craft and to understand our world. Using a fully mechanical device doesn’t allow you to have that technical detachment.

Using old equipment doesn’t make me or Jan creative per se but I will argue that the choice of use holds significance if we look at it from an analytical socio-material stance. This self-imposed rule (using old cameras) leads Jan to play by the material-imposed rules, the affordances of the camera, while breaking some of the social-imposed rules (convention of the field; shooting digitally in the 21th century). Choosing with a specific camera brings a different or at least an additional set of rules to the game: The constraints or material-imposed rules of the chosen camera. These rules coexist with or are governed by the conventions of the field of photography and the norms of the society – the social-imposed rules. These rules in turn direct what constitutes a good photo, what you can and can’t photograph, how to photograph etc.

Cultivating a heightened attention to the different rules at play in your chosen field might help you orient yourself as a creative practitioner as the rules can become the espalier the vine can climb and be the frames needed to create and grow rather than a nuisance to be endured.

The photographer can’t envision the perfect shot without actively getting out there trying to capture it. It is by knowing the rules of the field and being sensitive to the socio-material affordances granted by the equipment that one learns to play the game – and to develop it further. These artifacts constitute important parts of the process of creativity and in this way creative processes and products are not thought of as separate entities but viewed as an interdependent whole with various rules shaping the pas de deux.

It is my opinion that we need a renewed focus on the relationship between creativity and rules and, thus, for an extended view on creativity. Instead of limiting our view on creativity to be solely occupied with either the creative person or process, I argue that it is in the inter-play between person and process, idea and object that new things and practices materialize. When creativity and rules are seen as part of everyday life and ingrained in daily life practice it becomes a process of making sense and conducting one’s life with practical wisdom (Sternberg, 1998). The subtle or explicit rules - constraints and conventions - we engage with knowingly or unknowingly shape and guide our creative practice. Irrespective of them being self-imposed, material-imposed, social-imposed or an amalgam: Learn the rules in order to manipulate them – creatively.



Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior46(3), 192-208.

Juelsbo, T. (2016). Rules. In Creativity—A New Vocabulary (pp. 137-146). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of general psychology2(4), 347.

Tanggaard, L. (2013). The sociomateriality of creativity. Culture and Psychology, 19(1), 20-32.

Release of Deliberation RuleML 1.02

August 1, 2016 2:08 PM
The specification of Deliberation RuleML 1.02 has been released and presented at RuleML 2016.
The Specification of Deliberation RuleML 1.02 has become an official release by the RuleML Steering Committee after approval of the Response to Review of Deliberation RuleML 1.02.

The specification has been presented in the opening session of RuleML 2016.

The intended audience of the Deliberation RuleML specification includes users who want to perform any of the following tasks:

* Author new Deliberation RuleML instance documents
* Author new instance documents using a syntax that incorporates Deliberation RuleML elements, such as Consumer RuleML, Reaction RuleML, or LegalRuleML
* Validate such documents
* Transform such documents
* Implement reasoning engines that accept such documents

For more information, see Deliberation RuleML 1.02 Release History.