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

Re: import qus <-- RE: imports + metadata

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:42:39 +0100
Message-ID: <47F3631F.7040405@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Paul Vincent wrote:
> 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). 

Yes. It is very common to have one ontology build upon (import) multiple 
other ontologies produced by different groups. It seems to be a 
fundamental use case in RIF is to take one rule from one group and 
re-use it.  We certainly had "merge rule sets" as a phase 1 requirement 
and the import mechanism seems to me to be part of our answer to this.

> 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?

You are importing a URL, whatever that URL gives you is what you import. 
In the case of an http URL then it is whatever results from an http GET 

> By contract? By version no or metadata? 

? Sorry, don't follow the question.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> 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
> [mailto: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
> the
>>>       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
> entailment
>> 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
> metadata
>> describing the source and entailment regime. If Harold/Michael's new
>> metadata proposal wins the day then that would be expressed as a set
> of
>> 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
> reasoner.
>> Given that not all the inference can be implemented as rules that
> seems
>> 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 Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:44:14 UTC

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