- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:48:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20060512.174857.32194485.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
In fulfillment of Peter, apply RIFRAF to SWRL [recorded in <a href="http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action06"> http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action06</a> ] I submit the following response. Peter F. Patel-Schneider How SWRL relates to the RAF. SWRL is an extension to OWL adding unary/binary Horn rules with conjunctive consequents. SWRL has a number of other features, notably a bunch of built-in functions, but its defining feature is simply the addition of rules to OWL. A SWRL rule is thus just a Horn rule (with a conjunctive consequent) where all the predicates are unary or binary. SWRL forbids consequent-only variables. A SWRL KB is a collection of SWRL rules and OWL axioms. Predicate names occuring in SWRL rules have the same denotation as OWL classes and properties. Syn: Syntactic Discriminators 1/ Restricted vs. Unrestricted Use of Logic Variables SWRL does not allow consequent-only variables, but this does not restrict the expressive power of SWRL in the way one might expect because of the ability to use OWL classes and properties in the consequents of rules. This points out a problem with RAF - syntactic variations may or may not matter, depending on the other aspects of the formalism. RAF appears to written to characterise rule systems that look like how the authors think rule systems should look. 2/ Predicate Variables Permitted vs. Not Permitted SWRL does not allow predicate variables. 3/ Monotonic Lloyd-Topor Extensions Allowed vs. not Allowed SWRL allows Horn clauses plus conjunctive consequents. It thus allows some but not all of the Monotonic Lloyd-Topor Extensions. The extension allowed does not add to the expressive power of SWRL because has a standard model theory. Several other syntactic extensions would thus also simply be syntactic sugar. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? Again, there is no indication that parts of formalisms that don't fit within the "standard" rule view are considered. 4/ Explicit vs. Implicit Rule Scope SWRL has the notion of a KB or ontology, as does OWL, but ontologies are not really first-class entities. The placement of SWRL in this feature space is thus somewhat hard to determine. 5/ Slotted (Keyed, Role-Named) vs. Positional Arguments SWRL does not have keyed arguments. This, however, is simply a matter of syntactic sugar. The only real use for keyed arguments is for ease of human comprehension, something that is of very limited utility in a representation language of this sort. 6/ Webized vs. non-Webized Names SWRL uses the same syntactic conventions for syntactic entities as are used by OWL. It thus fits into the Semantic Web even better than just using "webized" names. */ There are no syntactic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL DL. SeS: Syntactic-entailing-Semantic Discriminators 1/ Homogeneous (Body has Single Expressiveness Class) vs. Hybrid (Body has Two Expressiveness Classes) Rules SWRL has precisely the same syntax for antecedents and consequents. (Well, sort of, as consequents can't have variables that do not occur in the antecedent.) Where then, does SWRL fit in the above discriminator? The impact of this discriminator is also dependent on the meaning of the syntax. 2/ Fact-only (Database Tables) vs. Rule-only vs. Fact-and-Rule Bases SWRL allows OWL axioms as facts. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? 3/ Function-ful (FO Horn Logic) vs. Function-free (FO Datalog) SWRL doesn't allow functions. However, SWRL does have equality and enough machinery to make predicates functional. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? SWRL incoporates datatypes from OWL and adds some built-in functions. Does this mean that SWRL has interpreted functions? If the SWRL built-in functions were removed where would SWRL then fit? 4/ Variable-ful (Non-Ground) vs. Variable-free (Ground) Clauses SWRL allows variables in rule antecedents and consequents. 5/ Predicate Arity/Arities SWRL allows only unary and binary predicates. However, SWRL ties them to OWL classes and properties. 6/ Number of Premises in Rules SWRL does not restrict the number of atoms in either antecedents or consequents. 7/ Labeled (Anchored, OIDed) vs. Unlabeled Clauses SWRL does not label its syntactic entities. 8/ Certain vs. Uncertain Clauses and Atoms What does this mean? */ There are no syntactic-entailing-semantic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL. Sem: Semantic Discriminators 1/ Terminating (all Queries Terminate) vs. non-Terminating (at least one Query does not Terminate) Rulebases SWRL is undecidable. However, what does this have to do with semantics (as opposed to being something about syntax, for example)? 2/ Finite-Model vs. Infinite-Model Rulebases (cf. decidability) SWRL is silent on whether there can be an infinite number of axioms or rules. SWRL does not have a finite model property. 3/ modality/intentionality (beyond FOL) SWRL is first-order. */ There are no semantic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL. Prag: Pragmatic Discriminators 1/ Inference control SWRL does not have any inference control. SWRL does not even specify how inference is supposed to work. SWRL only has the notion of entailment, which is defined model-theoretically. 2/ Complexity SWRL is a simple language. (Well, at least, the rule part is simple.) 3/ Interoperability SWRL is silent on this aspect, whatever it is. */ There are no pragmatic discriminators that measure how well SWRL fits into the Semantic Web.
How SWRL relates to the RAF. SWRL is an extension to OWL adding unary/binary Horn rules with conjunctive consequents. SWRL has a number of other features, notably a bunch of built-in functions, but its defining feature is simply the addition of rules to OWL. A SWRL rule is thus just a Horn rule (with a conjunctive consequent) where all the predicates are unary or binary. SWRL forbids consequent-only variables. A SWRL KB is a collection of SWRL rules and OWL axioms. Predicate names occuring in SWRL rules have the same denotation as OWL classes and properties. Syn: Syntactic Discriminators 1/ Restricted vs. Unrestricted Use of Logic Variables SWRL does not allow consequent-only variables, but this does not restrict the expressive power of SWRL in the way one might expect because of the ability to use OWL classes and properties in the consequents of rules. This points out a problem with RAF - syntactic variations may or may not matter, depending on the other aspects of the formalism. RAF appears to written to characterise rule systems that look like how the authors think rule systems should look. 2/ Predicate Variables Permitted vs. Not Permitted SWRL does not allow predicate variables. 3/ Monotonic Lloyd-Topor Extensions Allowed vs. not Allowed SWRL allows Horn clauses plus conjunctive consequents. It thus allows some but not all of the Monotonic Lloyd-Topor Extensions. The extension allowed does not add to the expressive power of SWRL because has a standard model theory. Several other syntactic extensions would thus also simply be syntactic sugar. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? Again, there is no indication that parts of formalisms that don't fit within the "standard" rule view are considered. 4/ Explicit vs. Implicit Rule Scope SWRL has the notion of a KB or ontology, as does OWL, but ontologies are not really first-class entities. The placement of SWRL in this feature space is thus somewhat hard to determine. 5/ Slotted (Keyed, Role-Named) vs. Positional Arguments SWRL does not have keyed arguments. This, however, is simply a matter of syntactic sugar. The only real use for keyed arguments is for ease of human comprehension, something that is of very limited utility in a representation language of this sort. 6/ Webized vs. non-Webized Names SWRL uses the same syntactic conventions for syntactic entities as are used by OWL. It thus fits into the Semantic Web even better than just using "webized" names. */ There are no syntactic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL DL. SeS: Syntactic-entailing-Semantic Discriminators 1/ Homogeneous (Body has Single Expressiveness Class) vs. Hybrid (Body has Two Expressiveness Classes) Rules SWRL has precisely the same syntax for antecedents and consequents. (Well, sort of, as consequents can't have variables that do not occur in the antecedent.) Where then, does SWRL fit in the above discriminator? The impact of this discriminator is also dependent on the meaning of the syntax. 2/ Fact-only (Database Tables) vs. Rule-only vs. Fact-and-Rule Bases SWRL allows OWL axioms as facts. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? 3/ Function-ful (FO Horn Logic) vs. Function-free (FO Datalog) SWRL doesn't allow functions. However, SWRL does have equality and enough machinery to make predicates functional. Where, then, does SWRL fit in this discriminator? SWRL incoporates datatypes from OWL and adds some built-in functions. Does this mean that SWRL has interpreted functions? If the SWRL built-in functions were removed where would SWRL then fit? 4/ Variable-ful (Non-Ground) vs. Variable-free (Ground) Clauses SWRL allows variables in rule antecedents and consequents. 5/ Predicate Arity/Arities SWRL allows only unary and binary predicates. However, SWRL ties them to OWL classes and properties. 6/ Number of Premises in Rules SWRL does not restrict the number of atoms in either antecedents or consequents. 7/ Labeled (Anchored, OIDed) vs. Unlabeled Clauses SWRL does not label its syntactic entities. 8/ Certain vs. Uncertain Clauses and Atoms What does this mean? */ There are no syntactic-entailing-semantic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL. Sem: Semantic Discriminators 1/ Terminating (all Queries Terminate) vs. non-Terminating (at least one Query does not Terminate) Rulebases SWRL is undecidable. However, what does this have to do with semantics (as opposed to being something about syntax, for example)? 2/ Finite-Model vs. Infinite-Model Rulebases (cf. decidability) SWRL is silent on whether there can be an infinite number of axioms or rules. SWRL does not have a finite model property. 3/ modality/intentionality (beyond FOL) SWRL is first-order. */ There are no semantic discriminators for any of the aspects of SWRL that tie it to OWL. Prag: Pragmatic Discriminators 1/ Inference control SWRL does not have any inference control. SWRL does not even specify how inference is supposed to work. SWRL only has the notion of entailment, which is defined model-theoretically. 2/ Complexity SWRL is a simple language. (Well, at least, the rule part is simple.) 3/ Interoperability SWRL is silent on this aspect, whatever it is. */ There are no pragmatic discriminators that measure how well SWRL fits into the Semantic Web.
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 21:49:09 UTC