Re: Rule usage description - or how can I associate related rules to an ontology/RDF graph?

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