W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > October 2009

RIF BLD implementation report (abstract syntax in Java, parser and converter to TPTP)

From: Alexandre Riazanov <alexandre.riazanov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:36:30 -0400
Message-ID: <a7f786b70910251636i18848391vc1c7b76269aef79b@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rif-comments@w3.org
I will follow the questionary from
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/How_to_Submit_an_Implementation_Report

1. Your name, affiliation, and (optionally) the names of other people who
helped with the implementation.

Alexandre Riazanov, private project.


2. The name of your system, a URL for its website (if any), and a
one-sentence description.

RIF BLD tools in Java, http://www.freewebs.com/riazanov/software.htm

Java package for abstract syntax, parser and converter to the TPTP format
for first-order predicate logic.


3. Which dialects your software is designed to support (eg Core, BLD, PRD,
or non-standard extension dialects). We would appreciate some brief
commentary about why you chose these dialects, and what sorts of
implementation techniques (eg algorithms) are being used.

BLD. Conversion to the TPTP format allows to use many first-order reasoners
supporting this format.


4. Do you believe your system currently conforms to the RIF Candidate
Recommendations? Does it pass all the test cases for your dialect(s)? If
not, which features does it lack and/or which test cases does it not yet
pass? Do you have plans to make it conformant, and make it pass all the test
cases?

External terms and atoms are not supported yet since there is no general way
to support them with all TPTP reasoners.
The support for data literals is very experimental for the same reason.
However, a fully conforming implementation based
on the VampirePrime reasoner (an open-source branch of Vampire also
available from http://www.freewebs.com/riazanov/software.htm) is being
planned.


5. Does it implement any parts of RIF RDF and OWL
Compatibility<http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/>?
Any issues?

Not considered yet.


6. Did you implement the "at risk"
features<http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Features_At_Risk>?
If not, do you intend to, or do you think we should remove them from RIF?

Positive equality (provided that the TPTP reasoner being used supports it).

7. Finally, we'd appreciate your evaluation of whether the RIF Candidate
Recommendation is ready to proceed along the standards track toward being a
W3C Recommendation. If not, please be sure to tell us what problems you
think we need to address.

The implementation attempt confirmed my opinion that the Candidate
Recommendation is mature enough to become
a W3C Recommendation.

Cheers,
======================================
Dr. Alexandre Riazanov (Alexander Ryazanov)
Montreal, Canada
cell: +1 - 514 - 961 86 89
http://www.freewebs.com/riazanov/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/riazanov
======================================
Received on Sunday, 25 October 2009 23:37:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 25 October 2009 23:37:04 GMT