Re: initial RIF experiences

No problem Chris and thanks for all the hard work in the RIF WG!

Kind regards,

Jos De Roo | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 7618
 http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Quadrat NV, Kortrijksesteenweg 157, 9830 Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium
http://www.agfa.com/healthcare



Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> 
08/28/2009 03:36 PM

To
Jos De Roo/AMDUS/AGFA@AGFA
cc
public-rif-comments@w3.org
Subject
Re: initial RIF experiences







Jos,

Nice to hear from you. Very cool.

May we list your implementation on the implementation page [1]?

-The RIF WG

jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
 > A few days ago I started making an initial rif-dtb plugin
 > for Eye http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/README#eye
 > plus some initial test cases at
 > http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2007/07test/rifP.n3
 > and the actual N3 formulation of RIF builtins is following
 >
 > (args) func:xxx value.
 > (args) pred:xxx true.
 >
 > The test result of
 >
 > eye --nope --plugin
 > http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/rif-plugin.yap
 > http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2007/07test/rifP.n3 --query
 > http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2007/07test/rifQ.n3
 >
 > is looking like
 >
 > #Processed by $Id: euler.yap 3080 2009-08-06 12:40:36Z josd $
 >
 > @prefix func: <http://www.w3.org/2007/rif-builtin-function#>.
 > @prefix pred: <http://www.w3.org/2007/rif-builtin-predicate#>.
 > @prefix e: <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/log-rules#>.
 > @prefix : <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2007/07test#>.
 > @prefix var: <http://localhost/var#>.
 > @prefix r: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/reason#>.
 > @prefix n3: <http://www.w3.org/2004/06/rei#>.
 >
 > {((0 1 2) 3) func:append (0 1 2 3)} a :PASS.
 > {((0 1 2) 3 4) func:append (0 1 2 3 4)} a :PASS.
 > {((1 1) (1) (1) ((1))) func:append (1 1 (1) (1) ((1)))} a :PASS.
 > {(() 1) func:append (1)} a :PASS.
 > {(1 1) func:numeric-add 2} a :PASS.
 > {(5 2) func:numeric-divide 2.5} a :PASS.
 > {(5 2) func:numeric-integer-divide 2} a :PASS.
 > {(10 3) func:numeric-mod 1} a :PASS.
 > {(6 -2) func:numeric-mod 0} a :PASS.
 > {(4.5 1.2) func:numeric-mod 0.9} a :PASS.
 > {(123.0 6.0) func:numeric-mod 3.0} a :PASS.
 > {(5 2) func:numeric-multiply 10} a :PASS.
 > {(5 2) func:numeric-subtract 3} a :PASS.
 > {(1 1.0) pred:numeric-equal true} a :PASS.
 > {(1.0 0) pred:numeric-greater-than true} a :PASS.
 > {(1.0 1) pred:numeric-greater-than-or-equal true} a :PASS.
 > {(2.0 3) pred:numeric-less-than true} a :PASS.
 > {(3 5.0) pred:numeric-less-than-or-equal true} a :PASS.
 > {(1 1.01) pred:numeric-not-equal true} a :PASS.
 > {("""abracadabra""" """bra""") pred:matches true} a :PASS.
 > {("""abracadabra""" """^a.*a$""") pred:matches true} a :PASS.
 >
 >
 > #ENDS 8 msec
 >
 >
 > and we are really looking forward to Chimezie's Fuxi's RIF/XML->N3
 > to test RIF-BLD and later RIF-FOL (Eye uses First-order coherent logic
 > and every FOL theory has a conservative extension that is equivalent to 
a
 > Coherent Logic theory, a result that goes back to Skolem).
 >
 > Harold provided us a test where the extrapolated case of 30 million 
rules
 > would take Eye (using Yap) 7 minutes, EyeS (using SWI-prolog) 11 years
 > and EyeJ (using JLog) 77 years.
 > The demand driven indexing of Yap is the best I have seen in years!