W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2006

[RIF] Preliminary Design Roadmap

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:16:17 -0500
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E92DD9B6@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,

we have beeing working on a preliminary draft of a
RIF Design Roadmap for the F2F2 discussion tomorrow:
Please find it below and (avoiding line wraps) attached.

-- Harold

RIF Design Roadmap                                Draft 2006-02-27-6PM

Harold Boley (NRC), Michael Kifer (Stony Brook University),
Axel Polleres (DERI), Jos de Bruijn (DERI), Michael Sintek (DFKI),
Giorgos Stamou (NTUA), Jeff Pan (University of Aberdeen)

This preliminary design roadmap aims at a consensual system
for RIF Phase 1 features distilled from the current UCR draft,
the RIFRAF, and the public archive. It builds on the Design Goals
(cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Design_Goals).
An approach to RIF Phase 2 is sketched as well.


 1. Specify syntax and semantics of Horn Logic and sublanguages
    (cf. http://www.ruleml.org/modularization/#Model)
   1.1. Full Horn Logic (functions, no negation)
   1.2. Datalog (Horn Logic without functions, no negation)

 2. Syntactic and semantic extensions of Horn Logic
   2.1. Define purely syntactic extensions
        (cf. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL)
   2.1.1. Monotonic Lloyd-Topor extensions (disjuncts in body, conjuncts
in heads)
   2.1.2. Named arguments (slots) in n-ary notation
          - Can be developed into frames with OIDs (as in F-logic) in
Phase 2
   2.1.3. Higher-order syntax (cf. HiLog) -> Phase 2
   2.2. Support literals and datatypes (common functions and operators)
   2.3. Delineate appropriate semantics for different Horn-like rules
(cf. #9.2)
        (could be moved to Phase 2)
   2.3.1. First-order (all-model) semantics (cf. #5)
   2.3.2. Minimal-model semantics 
   2.3.3. Semantics for production rules

 3. Webizing features that should be (globally) addressable
   3.1. Adopting IRIs (incl. URIs, URLs) for Web-based addressing
   3.2. IRI addressing of RIF constants and predicates
   3.3. IRI addressing of other RIF features

 4. Pure production rules with only asserts in the action part
    - Execution is 1-to-1 with model generation, semantics compatible
with #1
    - Basis for interoperation between production rules and Horn rules
    - Action part will then be generalized in Phase 2

 5. Integrity queries, a.k.a. integrity constraints
    (will not require extra effort)
    - These constraints are considered violated if the queries have
      (an answer is a witness to an integrity-constraint violation)
    - The allowed queries must have the syntactic form of a rule body
    - Semantics of a rule body as in #1. Pragmatics of a warning or an
 6. Scope feature for the modularization/structuring of rulebases
    (cf. TRIPLE models/contexts, FLORA modules, named graphs)
    - Will enable Load-and-Query rule engines (i.e., engines that can
      and then query different rulebases at once)
    - Units for tagging provenance etc. (cf. #9)
    - Basis for scoped negation as failure in Phase 2

 7. Interoperability with RDF
    (work already ongoing)
    - Treat an RDF graph as a ruleset of binary or ternary facts 
    - Treat blank nodes as existentials in rule bodies and as
      Skolem functions in rule heads
    - Accommodate SPARQL queries from the body of rules (cf. #8)

 8. Interoperability with OWL
    (work already ongoing)
    - Define a hybrid combination semantics
      (cf. http://rewerse.net/deliverables/m12/i3-d3.pdf and
      At this stage, interoperation between OWL and rules will be at the
      level of rule bodies posing ground (after instantiation) queries
to OWL

 9. Metadata / semantic attributes for rule documents, scopes, rules,
    (could be moved to Phase 2)
   9.1. To enable searching for rulesets, Google Directory-style
   9.2. To enable tagging rulesets with intended semantics (e.g., FOL,
        LP/well-founded). This may not be that important in Phase 1,
        but will certainly be in Phase 2 (cf. #2.3)
   9.3. To enable tagging rulesets to indicate syntactic features that
        be supported by the recipient. This will support
        rule system interoperation.  Tagging can be done by pointing to
        suitable XML Schema document (cf. #1)
 10. XML Serialization
     (cf. RuleML's serialization)
     - RDF can be generated via XSLT


  At this stage, allow for three subfamilies with different semantics:
  FOL-style, LP-style, Production rules.
  The specific semantics will be indicated by a semantic attribute.
  Define different kinds of extended RDF/OWL interoperability for the
  three different kinds of extended rules.
  The Optional extensions (cf. last sections of all subfamilies) follow
  Phase 1 using the extensibility notion of the Charter. These
  could be specified in a separate RIF document working horizontally
  the three subfamilies below.

   I.   FOL-style rules

        1. Based on Phase 1
        2. Continued RDF Interoperability
        3. SWRL-inspired rule extension of OWL-DL
        4. Optional extensions
           - Fuzziness
           - Soft integrity constraints (expressing a kind of
           - ...

   II.  LP-style rules

        1. Scoped negations
          1.1.  Well-founded semantics of negation as failure
          1.2.  Answer-set (stable model) semantics
                - Can also be extended for "classical" negation
              Note: We might just use stable models and consider
                    well-founded as a more tractable approximation

        2. Syntactic extensions
          2.1. Full Lloyd-Topor
          2.2. Frame notation with object identifiers (cf. F-logic)

        3. RDF and OWL-DL Interoperability - extended from Phase 1

        4. Optional extensions
           - Disjunctive rules (using answer set semantics)
           - Fuzziness
           - ...

   III. Production rules

        1. Allow retract and other action types as rule actions
        2. Allow procedural attachments and events in rule bodies
        3. Also consider actions in the body a la Transaction Logic
           - The latter has logical semantics as opposed to #III.1 and
             compatible with LP-style semantics
        4. Optional extensions
           - Fuzziness
           - ...

Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 17:16:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC