- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:49:38 -0500
- To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: 'Chris Welty' <cawelty@frontiernet.net>, "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 22:47 +0200, Gerd Wagner wrote: > > > Please have a look at the XML Schema of our REWERSE Rule Markup > > > Language (R2ML) at > > > http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/6 > > > > Interesting... lots of stuff there... I think the > > "EBNF abstract syntax" is the main thing I want to study; > > I'm having trouble finding it. Help? > > We've defined the abstract syntax of R2ML with the help > of a UML/MOF model (as proposed by the OMG): > http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/R2ML/0.4/metamodel/R2MLv0.4.htm > > MOF is more abstract (and in some sense more expressive) than > ordinary EBNF, and it can be easily mapped to EBNF. I'm somewhat familiar with UML and MOF; the W3C TAG is using UML a bit, and I have written some code to convert the source of the diagrams to OWL (i.e. RDF/XML using OWL terms). See: Using RDF and OWL to model language evolution 2006-02-15 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/87 What is the source of that metamodel/R2MLv0.4.htm stuff? I see HTML files and images; is there a MOF source file somewhere that I could study? > But for those who prefer to read EBNF (and I'm afraid > this is the majority with a W3C group), we'll make an > EBNF for the typed condition language of R2ML by tomorrow. I look forward to it. > > > The first example I see starts with an incorrect namespace > > declaration... > > > > <r2ml:ProductionRule > > xmlns:ex="org.drools.examples.TroubleTicketExample" > > -- http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/17 > > > > The value of a namespace attribute is a URI; "org.drools..." is not. > > Yes, sorry, we didn't map the Java package name to a corresponding > URI - will be fixed by tomorrow :-) > > > Do you have any example of using URIs from RDF/OWL documents > > in R2ML rules? > > R2ML rules can be based on an external vocabulary in the > form of an RDFS vocabulary or OWL ontology. See the MOF > diagram below that defines the possibility of zero or more external > vocabularies. OK... I guess that makes sense... I'll have to study it some more. I'm more interested in practical examples... > We have also a running example where an external vocabulary > in the form of the OWL ontology > http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/TestVoc.owl > is combined with R2ML rules that are being verbalized, see > http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/verbalization/index.jsp Yes, that is quite interesting... (especially since I'm involved in a research project involving proofs/explanations, where this verbalizing stuff is quite relevant. see http://dig.csail.mit.edu/TAMI/ ) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 21:49:56 UTC