- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:15:36 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, thanks a lot for your reply. As far as I understand the semantics of rif:usedWithProfile* (or rif:imports), it defines a strict application of the rules that are included in the associated profile. I'm especially interested in varieties of such a relation e.g., - "recommendation": it depends upon the reasoning engine settings, whether the related rules would be applied or not - "strict": please apply these rules to achieve the intended meaning - "applied": the reasoning engine of the information provider applies these rules in reasoning tasks Or can I describe such a rule usage description in a RIF profile (machine-processable)? If so, please could you (or someone) provide an example. Cheers, Bob *) is similar to spin:rule Am 12.12.2010 12:09, schrieb Ivan Herman: > Bob, > > this issue did come up in the course of the SPARQL 1.1 work, which contains a separate entailment document[1]. That entailment document also includes RIF entailment, which, in turn, requires the answer to the question you are asking. And (good timing!) Axel Polleres and Sandro Hawke just described a mechanism whose goal is to be included the SPARQL standard[2]. This is by no means final, will be discussed by the SPARQL Group I presume, but will be finalized eventually... > > I hope this helps > > Ivan > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-entailment-20101014/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Importing_RIF > > On Dec 9, 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 Monday, 13 December 2010 10:16:06 UTC