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

Re: [Core] binding patterns

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <48A32B5B.1070605@deri.org>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:42:26 +0100
> Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
>> Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> As we discussed (a few months) earlier, binding patterns have no meaning
>>> outside of a particular evaluation algorithm (procedural semantics). 
>> I remember well, but as long as this is not contradicting with the 
>> existing semantics - I guess for core, we can kind of assume a standard 
>> forward-chaining evaluation procedure, which only makes sense to me with 
>> binding patterns and safety - I see no problem with this.
> How did you "guessed" that? :-)
> Why is it that in the core we can make such assumptions?

call it "wishful thinking", if you like, but it's reasonable from my 
point of view.

> Furthermore, this makes sense only for some *particular* forward chaning
> strategies and for particular backward chaining ones.
>>> It is
>>> therefore not clear how to incorporate them in the current spec, which is
>>> supposed to be independent of the procedural things.
>> It would be only a part of the core dialect specification, which is just 
>> a syntactic restriction of BLD with the exact same semantics as BLD.
>> Would you see a problem with that?
> I don't see  how this can be useful. If this is part of a spec then everybody
> is supposed to implement it, no?

The fallback is just to go with strict safety for external predicates 
(that is, each variable in an external pred needs to be bound in a 
non-external body atom) in core...implementers would then be free to 
implement more liberal usage of variables in external preds as wanted. I 
would be fine with that. One example of such a more liberal usage is the 
hex-program safety which was cited in previous mails. However, that one 
needs a distinction between "input" and "output" parameters, i.e. 
binding patterns

> The core should be implemented by everyone, so I dont think this is good.

> michael
>> Axel
>>> michael
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:31:08 +0100
>>> Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
>>>> (put the subject under a [Core] label.)
>>>> Binding patterns were mentioned a view times today, I thus try to 
>>>> reformulate here a definition, which may be a helpful starting point 
>>>> helpful in this context and which :
>>>> An external predicate with external schema
>>>>   ( X_1,....,X_n; pred(X_1,....,X_n) )
>>>> is  assigned with one or more binding patterns, where a binding pattern 
>>>> is a vector {in,out}^n:
>>>> Any external predicate provides a way for deciding the truth value of an 
>>>> output tuple depending on the extension of a set of input predicates and 
>>>> terms. External predicates have a fixed interpretation assigned for 
>>>> their intended domains. The distinction between input and output terms 
>>>> is made in order to guarantee that whenever all input values of one of 
>>>> the given binding patterns are bound to concrete values, the fixed 
>>>> interpretation only allows a finite number of bindings for the output 
>>>> values such that the predicate evaluates to true, and those finite set 
>>>> of bindings which can be computed by an external evaluation oracle.
>>>> If we agree to add something like binding patterns to DTB, I could start 
>>>> to "collect" the possible binding patterns for the DTB predicates.
>>>> Side remark: note that external functions don't need binding patterns 
>>>> (obviously all parameters are 'in' and the only 'out' is the result.)
>>>> Axel Polleres wrote:
>>>>> Two pointers here... the notion of strong safety in hex-programs [1,2] 
>>>>> and Topor's considerations on  safe database queries with arithmetics 
>>>>> [3] (cudos jos for the latter one)
>>>>> 1. R. Schindlauer. Answer-Set Programming for the Semantic Web. PhD 
>>>>> thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Dec. 2006.
>>>>> http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/roman/papers/thesis.pdf
>>>>> 2.  Thomas Eiter, Giovambattista Ianni, Roman Schindlauer, and Hans 
>>>>> Tompits. Effective Integration of Declarative Rules with External 
>>>>> Evaluations for Semantic Web Reasoning. In York Sure and John Domingue, 
>>>>> editors, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Semantic Web 
>>>>> (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro, number 4011 in Lecture Notes in Computer 
>>>>> Science (LNCS), pages 273-287. Springer, June 2006.
>>>>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/f0x23wx142141v44/
>>>>> 3. R. Topor. Safe database queries with arithmetic relations (1991)
>>>>> Proc. 14th Australian Computer Science Conf 
>>>>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=

Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Everything is possible:
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Resource.
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf.
rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf.
rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty.
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 18:44:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:52 UTC