The Use of Common Knowledge in Fuzzy Logic Approach for Vineyard Site Selection
Katarzyna Chrobak , Grzegorz Chrobak , Jan Kazak
AbstractA multitude of factors considered necessary for an informed choice of the location of the vineyard can be overwhelming for the decision-maker. Is there still a place for knowledge valuable from the perspective of an experienced winegrower in the era of precise measurements? The informative use of so-called common knowledge is possible owing to fuzzy-based techniques, which allow for the representation of intuitive notions in terms of quantitative measures. The work uses tools based on fuzzy logic to cover the scope of common knowledge within the decision-making process. Owing to its flexibility and ability to deal with imprecise input data while maintaining the simple construction, the fuzzy logic solution filled the gap between GIS data and wine grower’s experience. Based on the data from the thematic literature, a set of rules was created to interpret the relationships between popular site selection criteria. The dynamics and manner of interaction between variables were determined using adequate membership functions. Pre-processing using GIS with remote sensing data was considered as a preliminary stage for the analysis. By using the graphical interface, the system operation facilitates the work of a potential user. The obtained results indicated the possibility of an alternative approach to classical analyses by replacing or extending the meaning of some variables using information based on feelings and perceptions. Research constitutes a premise for the further development of expert systems using widely understood domain knowledge.
|Journal series||Remote Sensing, ISSN 2072-4292, (N/A 100 pkt)|
|Publication size in sheets||1.5|
|Keywords in English||decision-making, location analysis, fuzzy logic, common knowledge, wine industry, vineyard|
|License||Journal (articles only); published final; ; with publication|
|Score||= 100.0, 21-04-2021, ArticleFromJournal|
|Publication indicators||= 1; = 2; : 2017 = 1.559; : 2018 = 4.118 (2) - 2018=4.74 (5)|
|Citation count*||2 (2021-05-16)|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.