From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:33:39 +0100

Message-ID: <4625D7E3.1070304@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:33:39 +0100

Message-ID: <4625D7E3.1070304@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

At yesterday's discussion on Issue-31 we thought it would be useful to develop a test case to illustrate the translation issues involved in choosing between the various disjointness approaches. I half-volunteered for this. I'm familiar with the corresponding issue in OWL but not with the corresponding issue for rule systems. Here is a first cut at translating a simplified OWL example into a rule system setting. ** Caveats: I may be misunderstanding the issue in a rule system setting, in which case perhaps by attempting to make it concrete that will at least shed light on the misunderstanding. I don't think I care about this issue enough to want to drive it. So treat this as an initial stimulus for thought. Hopefully someone with more experience in rule systems will be able to come up with a better test case. ** Notation I'm using the RIF Core human readable syntax as best I can but using simple labels rather than sort-tagged IRIs for the constants :-) The terms DS, ONDS, OS stand for "disjoint sorts", "overlapping-names disjoint sorts" (aka punning) and "overlapping sorts" as described in [1]. ** Base test case Ruleset: Forall ( p(a) :- And()) # p(a). Forall ( q(b) :- And()) # q(b). Forall ( p = q :- And()) # p = q. Query: p(?x) N.B. I'm assuming that the RIF Core atomic term "p = q" treats "p" and "q" as individuals. This is intended to be analogous to having "p" and "q" designate OWL classes, "a" and "b" be OWL individuals, "p(a)" be an rdf:type assertion and "=" be owl:sameAs. DS is OWL/DL, ONDS is OWL/DL-1.1, OS is OWL/full. In which case ... If the core is DS this is ill-formed. If the core is ONDS this is well-formed and the query would return just the binding p(a). The equality statement only asserts equality between "p" and "q" when used in the syntactic role of individuals and does not affect their interpretation as unary predicates. If the core is OS this is well-formed and the query would return the two bindings p(a) and p(b). (a) Am I right in understanding that this is what everyone means by the DS/ONDS/OS choice? (b) Is this a legal formulation of a test case in RIF Core? If the answer to the above are both yes (hah) then we can look at the translation issues. ** ONDS to DS The source rule uses the same identifier for distinct objects so the translator needs to introduce new identifiers: Forall ( p_unary_pred(a) :- And()) Forall ( q_unary_pref(b) :- And()) Forall ( p_individual = q_individual :- And()) Query: p_unary_pred(?x) The translation is straightforward but the form of identifiers in the target system may not be intuitive. A static analyis could omit the identifier renaming for constants which are not subject to punning but that leads to a non-monotonic translation which is undesirable (at least in the OWL setting). ** ONDS to OS Same as for ONDS to DS, the translator has to introduce new identifiers. ** OS to DS Hummm ... If we can assume an equality operator for predicates (=pred=) then I guess the translation would be something like: Forall ( p_unary_pred(a) :- And()) Forall ( q_unary_pref(b) :- And()) Forall ( p_individual =indivdual= q_individual :- And()) Forall ( p_unary_pred =pred= q_unary_pred) Query: p_unary_pred(?x) If not then we would have to rewrite all of the rules involving p and q to introduce the alias syntactically: Forall ( p_unary_pred(a) :- And()) Forall ( q_unary_pref(a) :- And()) Forall ( p_unary_pred(b) :- And()) Forall ( q_unary_pref(b) :- And()) Forall ( p_individual = q_individual :- And()) Query: p_unary_pred(?x) ** OS to ONDS Would be either: Forall ( p(a) :- And()) Forall ( q(b) :- And()) Forall ( p =indivdual= q :- And()) Forall ( p =pred= q :- And()) Query: p(?x) or Forall ( p(a) :- And()) Forall ( q(a) :- And()) Forall ( p(b) :- And()) Forall ( q(b) :- And()) Forall ( p = q :- And()) Query: p(?x) Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Issue-31 -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 EnglandReceived on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 08:33:52 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:43 UTC
*