Re: [RIF] A draft of the Minutes from May 9 Phone Call

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