- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:45:41 +0100
- To: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Bob: What you can do is using SPIN rules for that: http://www.spinrdf.org/spin.html#spin-rules This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it allows attaching a SPARQL CONSTRUCT rule to a class. Best Martin On 09.12.2010, at 14:36, Bob Ferris wrote: > Hi, > > someone might say now: "Hey, I heard that question already somewhere > else." - Yes, you are right. I asked this question at > semanticoverflow.com[1]. However, I'm sure that I'll hopefully reach > here a broader/different audience. Furthermore, I think more and > more that this is and will be a very important issue (requirement) > for the 'main' purpose of the Semantic Web - information integration. > > So here we go: > > As I think the need for assigning specific rules to Semantic Web > ontologies/RDF graphs to enable intented inferences is getting more > and more important, we need possibilities to semantically related > these rules to Semantic Web ontologies/RDF graphs. The publication > of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF)[2] this summer was a (huge) > step into that direction. However, am I right that they missed a > (from my point of view) very important functionality? To quote a > part of an answer of an RIF FAQ[3]: > > "This lets you physically embed RIF in an RDFS/OWL document, but > notes that the embedded RIF is merely described, not asserted. There > is not currently a standard vocabulary saying, in RDFS/OWL, that you > also want some RIF rules as part of your ontology. Instead, for now, > you must have RIF import RDFS/OWL." > > So how can I associate rules that should be/could be applied to a > specific Semantic Web ontology/RDF graph? - e.g., > > * Information Service A applied rule B,C,D to it whole knowledge > base that can be identified by URI Z > * Information Service E suggest rule F and G to be applied at RDF > Graph Y > * Ontology H should be used with rule I for proper reasoning > > > Already proposed ideas: > > 1. the SPIN framework[4] > 2. the Rulz vocabulary[5] > > Where the first one offers spin:rule and spin:constraint to > associate rules/constraints to RDF/OWL models, the second offers a > quite simple mechanism to embed rules, that are described in a > certain rule language, in an RDF graph. > However, I'm looking for rule usage description*, i.e. I do not > simple want to associate a rule by using a quite static property > e.g., spin:rule that has quite interpretable semantics. I want > relations to 'suggest' or 'prescribe' rules. Maybe also by > explaining their benefits etc. Another attribute would be 'applied', > so that I can express that the information service where the > information comes from uses this rule (/these rules) in its > reasoning engine. I guess there might be more use cases. > I think that this mechanism is really necessary, if we want to share > proper semantics to interpret the sense of an information. I believe > that we cannot achieve a quite good interpretation (intended meaning/ > purpose) of a message, when we use a 'simple' description of an > applied concept (here a description without relations to related > rules). > > What do you think about this issue? I think it is crucial. > > Cheers, > > > Bob > > > *) afaik RIF includes also some attributes to describe rules/ usage > of rules. However, all descriptions I've seen so far are natural > language text, which is quite bad to interpret at the moment > > > [1] http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/2293/how-can-i-associate-related-rules-to-an-ontology-rdf-graph > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FAQ#How_do_I_embed_RIF_in_an_RDFS.2FOWL_schema_or_ontology.3F > [4] http://spinrdf.org/ > [5] http://vocab.deri.ie/rulz# >
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 13:46:12 UTC