Re: Rule usage description - or how can I associate related rules to an ontology/RDF graph?

On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:15 , Bob Ferris wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
> 
> thanks a lot for your reply. As far as I understand the semantics of rif:usedWithProfile* (or rif:imports), it defines a strict application of the rules that are included in the associated profile. I'm especially interested in varieties of such a relation e.g.,
> 
> - "recommendation": it depends upon the reasoning engine settings, whether the related rules would be applied or not
> - "strict": please apply these rules to achieve the intended meaning
> - "applied": the reasoning engine of the information provider applies these rules in reasoning tasks
> 
> Or can I describe such a rule usage description in a RIF profile (machine-processable)? If so, please could you (or someone) provide an example.
> 

Afaik, the RIF profiles[1] only specify the semantics being used but once this is specified the rest is 'strict', in your terminology above.

Axel or Sandro may know more.

Cheers

Ivan



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-rdf-owl-20100622/#Profiles_of_Imports


> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> *) is similar to spin:rule
> 
> Am 12.12.2010 12:09, schrieb Ivan Herman:
>> Bob,
>> 
>> this issue did come up in the course of the SPARQL 1.1 work, which contains a separate entailment document[1]. That entailment document also includes RIF entailment, which, in turn, requires the answer to the question you are asking. And (good timing!) Axel Polleres and Sandro Hawke just described a mechanism whose goal is to be included the SPARQL standard[2]. This is by no means final, will be discussed by the SPARQL Group I presume, but will be finalized eventually...
>> 
>> I hope this helps
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-entailment-20101014/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Importing_RIF
>> 
>> On Dec 9, 2010, at 14:36 , Bob Ferris wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> someone might say now: "Hey, I heard that question already somewhere else." - Yes, you are right. I asked this question at semanticoverflow.com[1]. However, I'm sure that I'll hopefully reach here a broader/different audience. Furthermore, I think more and more that this is and will be a very important issue (requirement) for the 'main' purpose of the Semantic Web - information integration.
>>> 
>>> So here we go:
>>> 
>>> As I think the need for assigning specific rules to Semantic Web ontologies/RDF graphs to enable intented inferences is getting more and more important, we need possibilities to semantically related these rules to Semantic Web ontologies/RDF graphs. The publication of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF)[2] this summer was a (huge) step into that direction. However, am I right that they missed a (from my point of view) very important functionality? To quote a part of an answer of an RIF FAQ[3]:
>>> 
>>> "This lets you physically embed RIF in an RDFS/OWL document, but notes that the embedded RIF is merely described, not asserted. There is not currently a standard vocabulary saying, in RDFS/OWL, that you also want some RIF rules as part of your ontology. Instead, for now, you must have RIF import RDFS/OWL."
>>> 
>>> So how can I associate rules that should be/could be applied to a specific Semantic Web ontology/RDF graph? - e.g.,
>>> 
>>>    * Information Service A applied rule B,C,D to it whole knowledge base that can be identified by URI Z
>>>    * Information Service E suggest rule F and G to be applied at RDF Graph Y
>>>    * Ontology H should be used with rule I for proper reasoning
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Already proposed ideas:
>>> 
>>> 1. the SPIN framework[4]
>>> 2. the Rulz vocabulary[5]
>>> 
>>> Where the first one offers spin:rule and spin:constraint to associate rules/constraints to RDF/OWL models, the second offers a quite simple mechanism to embed rules, that are described in a certain rule language, in an RDF graph.
>>> However, I'm looking for rule usage description*, i.e. I do not simple want to associate a rule by using a quite static property e.g., spin:rule that has quite interpretable semantics. I want relations to 'suggest' or 'prescribe' rules. Maybe also by explaining their benefits etc. Another attribute would be 'applied', so that I can express that the information service where the information comes from uses this rule (/these rules) in its reasoning engine. I guess there might be more use cases.
>>> I think that this mechanism is really necessary, if we want to share proper semantics to interpret the sense of an information. I believe that we cannot achieve a quite good interpretation (intended meaning/purpose) of a message, when we use a 'simple' description of an applied concept (here a description without relations to related rules).
>>> 
>>> What do you think about this issue? I think it is crucial.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *) afaik RIF includes also some attributes to describe rules/ usage of rules. However, all descriptions I've seen so far are natural language text, which is quite bad to interpret at the moment
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/2293/how-can-i-associate-related-rules-to-an-ontology-rdf-graph
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FAQ#How_do_I_embed_RIF_in_an_RDFS.2FOWL_schema_or_ontology.3F
>>> [4] http://spinrdf.org/
>>> [5] http://vocab.deri.ie/rulz#
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf