W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-talk@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: RIF implementation experience? Re: Yet another release of FuXi

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:17:40 -0400
Message-ID: <f6ec8dcb0909240817o7097ca18h8c2a1a68b666b3f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: fuxi-discussion <fuxi-discussion@googlegroups.com>, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Reply inline below:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> Interesting... have you started playing with RIF?
> I gather the WG is getting pretty close to done,
> but I haven't managed to give it a close look myself.

Yes, I have (for some time actually).  Currently, the core, internal
rule API mimics an earlier version of the RIF BLD abstract syntax.
So, when N3 is parsed it is (internally) converted into a completely
object-oriented set of RIF rules.  I use the ability to override
__repr__ in Python as the mechanism for serializing a RIF ruleset
constructed in this way into the human readable syntax of RIF BLD.
OWL2 RL documents (at least the subset of this profile that intersects
with OWL-DL) can be converted into a corresponding RIF ruleset:


Support for the XML syntax has been put off for post 1.0 (which
unfortunately is necessary in order to test compliance via the
recently developed RIF test suite)

The RIF Core rule safety criteria has been implemented.  See:


Also, the PML proofs generated from top-down (backward chaining)
solution to answers uses the RIF BLD human readable syntax for the
conclusions of NodeSets.

-- Chimezie

> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/

-- Chimezie
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 15:22:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:06 UTC