Fwd: RIF Implementation Report

FYI: more info concerning the STI implementation.

Cheers, Jos

-- sent from my PDA

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Adrian Marte <adrian.marte@sti2.at>
> Date: 18 Jan 2010 13:05:18 GMT+01:00
> To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
> Subject: Re: RIF Implementation Report
>

> Hello Jos,
>
> Sorry for the late reponse. Unfortunately, we have no plans for that  
> at the moment. Due to the current schedule we even have to postpone  
> the further development of our RIF implementation. I think we can  
> manage a release in March 2010.
>
> Regards,
> Adrian
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 17:44, Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>  
> wrote:
> Hello Adrian,
>
> One final question: do you have any plans to address RIF RDF or OWL
> compatibility in the IRIS reasoner at some point?
> Thanks.
>
>
> Best, Jos
>
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> > Thanks for the prompt response and good luck with the remaining  
> bits of
> > the implementation.
> >
> > Cheers, Jos
> >
> > On 4 Dec 2009, at 15:15, Adrian Marte <adrian.marte@sti2.at
> > <mailto:adrian.marte@sti2.at>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We are planning to support all XML Schema datatypes (plus RDF
> >> PlainLiteral and XMLLiteral) and all built-ins except the ones
> >> regarding lists, since we do not have such a construct in our
> >> reasoner. Unfortunately, we did not perform any tests yet,  
> because we
> >> want to implement the missing built-ins first.
> >>
> >> I will send a report as soon as I have some results on the tests.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:21, Jos de Bruijn <
> >> <mailto:debruijn@inf.unibz.it>debruijn@inf.unibz.it
> >> <mailto:debruijn@inf.unibz.it>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Dear Adrian,
> >>
> >>     Thank you very much for your implementation report. We  
> appreciate the
> >>     feedback.
> >>
> >>     We have two further questions concerning your implementation:
> >>     - will you support the datatypes and built-ins defined by RIF- 
> DTB [1],
> >>     and to what extent? In other words, which datatypes and built- 
> ins does
> >>     your implementation support?
> >>     - have you performed any of the test in the RIF Test Cases  
> suite
> >>     [2]? If
> >>     so, could you send us a report of the test results [3]?
> >>
> >>     Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>     Best, Jos
> >>
> >>
> >>     [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/>http://www.w3.org/TR/rif- 
> dtb/
> >>     [2]
> >>     <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test
> >>     [3]
> >>     <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ 
> Test#Reporting_Test_Results>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test#Reporting_Test_Results
> >>
> >>     Adrian Marte wrote:
> >>     > Dear RIF working group,
> >>     >
> >>     > I am just writing to inform you that we are developing an
> >>     open-source
> >>     > RIF-BLD Java implementation and hope to release a first  
> version
> >>     of our
> >>     > software at the end of this year. We will publish the code  
> with a
> >>     > liberal open-source license and we would like to be added  
> to the
> >>     list of
> >>     > implementations on the RIF wiki.
> >>     >
> >>     > The software will be delivered in two components:
> >>     >
> >>     > 1. RIF/XML parser/serialiser - that translates RIF XML  
> documents
> >>     to a
> >>     > Java object model (that can be programmatically modified)  
> and a
> >>     > serialiser that converts back to RIF/XML format.
> >>     >
> >>     > 2. Reasoner components - this translates the Java object  
> model to
> >>     > another representation suitable for the reasoner (the  
> reasoner
> >>     > components used are from the IRIS set of reasoning  
> components).
> >>     >
> >>     > To answer the points requested on the submissions wiki page:
> >>     >
> >>     > 1. Adrian Marte, STI Innsbruck ( <http:// 
> www.sti2.at>www.sti2.at
> >>     <http://www.sti2.at> < <http://www.sti2.at>http:// 
> www.sti2.at>) and
> >>     > others (Barry Bishop, Christoph Fuchs, Matthias Pressnig,  
> Daniel
> >>     Winkler)
> >>     >
> >>     > 2. The two components are the parser/serialiser/object  
> model called
> >>     > "RIF4J" and the reasoner, which  will consist of  
> enhancements to
> >>     > existing software components (WSMO4J, IRIS, WSML2Reasoner)  
> which can
> >>     > simply be called "IRIS". For a one sentence description:
> >>     "Parsing and
> >>     > translation code on top of the IRIS rule-engine". The  
> software
> >>     will both
> >>     > consume and produce RIF rule sets.
> >>     >
> >>     > 3. We will support RIF-BLD - which matches with our  
> existing Datalog
> >>     > rule-engine, although we have extended this with new data- 
> types and
> >>     > built-ins..
> >>     >
> >>     > 4. We plan to make this implementation conformant.
> >>     >
> >>     > 5. RIF RDF and OWL compatibility has not been addressed yet.
> >>     >
> >>     > 6. We implement some at-risk features, including "equality  
> in rule
> >>     > conclusion".
> >>     >
> >>     > 7. We would encourage early standardisation on RIF. The most
> >>     confusing
> >>     > aspect to RIF so far has been the XML syntax and its
> >>     inconsistent use of
> >>     > XML element names, both in terms of upper/lower case and
> >>     abbreviations.
> >>     >
> >>     > Regards,
> >>     > Adrian Marte
> >>
> >>
>