W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

import qus <-- RE: imports + metadata

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:38:42 -0700
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0503D53B6D@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Imports: A few qu's.
1. Is this something that is quite common in the semantic web
knowledgebase world? AFAIK its not the case in the commercial prod rule
world, other than maybe as a rule mgmt issue (ie not as a deployment /
interchange issue). 

2. By "including" some knowledgebase, presumably you are doing so
because it is external (if it wasn't you could collapse it in-situ
before interchange). How can you "guarantee" you know such an external
KB's content? By contract? By version no or metadata? Or is that not
really an issue for the use case envisaged?

For PRD this is not necessary for rule interchange at this time (but it
could be something that is really required by the semantic web folks, in
which case I abstain).

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
> Sent: 01 April 2008 22:48
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: imports + metadata
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > I'm brainstorming here (sitting in OWLED)....
> >
> > I wonder about having both:
> >
> >       import   and   importMeta
> >
> > 'import' of a RIF document would merge in the rules in that document
> With renaming of locals presumably.
> > 'importMeta' of a RIF document would merge in the metadata and also
> >       triples which encode the syntactic structure (which we haven't
> >       standardized but we should, and Axel made a proposal [1]
> Sounds fine for metalevel hacking but feels like a phase 2 issue.
> > 'import' of an OWL XML file [2] or an RDF/XML-file which is an
> >       owl:Ontology would (conceptually merge in the OWL-DL axioms,
> >       ignoring all triples not playing a role in the ontology
> How do you know an RDF/XML file contains an OWL Ontology, specifically
> one to be interpreted as DL? You can't. That why we original proposed
> the DataSet ontology to allow us to describe data models and
> regimes so you can say "this is an RDFS source which I would like to
> interpret with full D-entailment semantics" or whatever.
> The original data model identification proposal [*] still seems to me
> like a feasible approach (I know I'm biased :-)). Of course it would
> have to be updated to cope with how far RIF has diverged from the
> RDF-compatible form envisaged at the time that was written. You would
> basically have the object of the "import" directive be a set of
> describing the source and entailment regime. If Harold/Michael's new
> metadata proposal wins the day then that would be expressed as a set
> Frames though I don't know how to do bNodes in frames.
> > 'importMeta' of such a document would give you the triples (ie the
> >       triples which encode the syntactic structure of the ontology).
> >       I'm not sure how you say you want OWL-Full inference or RDFS
> >       inference or something
> Surely the entailment regime is more relevant for import than for
> importMeta?
>  > -- I think you "import" rules which
> >       implement that inference, but the import is understood to be
> >       symbolic -- you're allowed to use your own equivalent
> Given that not all the inference can be implemented as rules that
> like a slightly awkward overloading of import but it is a plausible
> alternative to the metadata approach.
> Dave
> [*] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Data_Sets
> --
> Hewlett-Packard Limited
> Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 22:39:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC