Re: Lack of a standard rules language Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

Dear Dörthe

Indeed is sth this comunity is missing ... IMHO ...
I asked this a few years ago to the Jena Fuseki mailing list. I know there
are some efforts tool/framework specific, e.g., Fuseki, Virtuoso, TopBraid.

In this line I think SPIN can be another option to start from .... In any
case I would support your initiative.

Thanks!
Boris

On Sunday, December 16, 2018, <hanscools@breitband.ch> wrote:

> Dear Dörthe,
>
> Thanks for the initiative.
> I'll support it.
>
> Kind regards,
> Hans
>
> Hans Cools, M.D.
> Knowledge Engineer, Software Entwickler
> Nationale Infrastruktur für Editionen - Infrastructure nationale pour les
> éditions (NIE - INE)
> Universitätsbibliothek Basel
> Schönbeinstrasse 18-20
> CH-4056 Basel, Schweiz
> Büro 218
> Tel: +41 (0)61 207 57 08
>
> Am 22.11.2018 15:34, schrieb Doerthe Arndt:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> reading the below:
>>
>> 8. Lack of a standard rules language.  This is a big one.
>>> Inference is fundamental to the value proposition of RDF,
>>> and almost every application needs to perform some kind
>>> of application-specific inference.  ("Inference" is used
>>> broadly herein to mean any rule or procedure that produces new
>>> assertions from existing assertions -- not just conventional
>>> inference engines or rules languages.)  But paradoxically,
>>> we still do not have a *standard* RDF rules language.
>>> (See also Sean Palmer's apt observations about N3 rules.[14]) We
>>> want to move forward the standardisation of N3 since I think that it
>>> is really worth it:
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a good opportunity to get back to N3 Logic. We have
>> worked with N3 for years now and there are several reasons why I
>> believe that it should be standardized:
>>
>>         * Syntax:
>>
>> For someone knowing turtle, writing N3 rules is easy since N3
>> seamlessly extends the rdf's turtle syntax without having to fall back
>> on debatable constructs like reification.
>> Example:
>> For a triple :s :p :o. a rule  {?x :p :o} => {?x :pp :oo}. would lead
>> to :s :pp :oo.
>>
>> For reification, N3 also provides a solution in general which is very
>> close to the recent proposal of RDF* and could be aligned with it.
>> Example: :s :says {:s :p :o}.
>>
>>         * Practice:
>>
>> There are already existing reasoners for N3 Logic Like Cwm
>> (https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html) and EYE
>> (http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/). The latter developed in industry
>> which can make us at least confident that N3 is able to cover "real"
>> use cases.
>>
>> We used N3 in many practical use cases and had positive experiences
>> (for example
>> https://de.slideshare.net/ruleml2012/ruleml-2015-ontology-
>> reasoning-using-rules-in-an-ehealth-context
>> and https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8540876).
>>
>> We already did some first steps towards the standardization by
>> defining a model theory and identifying current problems:
>>
>>         * A recent talk about this topic at the RuleML Webinar
>> (https://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/RuleML_Webinar) can be accessed
>> here:
>> https://github.com/RuleML/ruleml-website/blob/master/talks/
>> DoertheArndt-SemN3Impl2ExplQuant-RuleMLWebinar-2018-09-28.pdf
>>
>>
>>         * Earlier work was presented at RuleML 2015 (Slides:
>> https://de.slideshare.net/ruleml2012/ruleml-2015-semantics-
>> of-notation3-logic-a-solution-for-implicit-quantification,
>> Paper: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_9)
>>
>>         * We furthermore hope to soon publish a journal paper about this
>> topic which is currently under review.
>>
>> CALL TO ACTION: who would support and/or join a W3C community group
>> around an N3 rule language?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Doerthe
>>
>> P.S.: To also get back to the rest of the ongoing discussion: N3
>> supports blank nodes and literals in all positions and treats lists as
>> "first class citizens" (in practice that means that there are no blank
>> nodes involved when expressing lists).
>>
>> --
>> Dörthe Arndt
>> Researcher Semantic Web
>> imec - Ghent University - IDLab | Faculty of Engineering and
>> Architecture | Department of Electronics and Information Systems
>> Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 19, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
>> t: +32 9 331 49 59 | e: doerthe.arndt@ugent.be
>>
>
>
>