ࡱ> ^](   <Vhttp://www.ruleml.org/modularization/#ModelJhttp://www.ruleml.org/modularization/0 Model#Zhttp://rewerse.net/deliverables/m12/i3-d3.pdfZhttp://rewerse.net/deliverables/m12/i3-d3.pdf&|ftp://ftp.cs.sunysb.edu/pub/TechReports/kifer/msa-ruleml05.pdf|ftp://ftp.cs.sunysb.edu/pub/TechReports/kifer/msa-ruleml05.pdf2jhttp://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Design_Goalsjhttp://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Design_Goals4Lhttp://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSLLhttp://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL`/ 0DArial_> 0ܖ0tt,x: 0DSymbol_> 0ܖ0tt,x: 0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` x.U  !#'()*+, 0AA@3ʚ;ʚ;g4tdtd9x: 0^ppp@ <4dddd@ 0t, 80___PPT10 pp? -O  =w (RIF Design Roadmap Draft 2006-02-27-6PM&)  Harold Boley (NRC), Michael Kifer (Stony Brook U), Axel Polleres (DERI), Jos de Bruijn (DERI), Michael Sintek (DFKI), Giorgos Stamou (NTUA), Jeff Pan (U of Aberdeen)P                  ! ! 6Preliminary design roadmap aims at a consensual system"  h2. Syntactic and semantic extensions of Horn Logic & 55 h& 2. Syntactic and semantic extensions of Horn Logic55                        #$]Allow for three subfamilies with different semantics: FOL-style, LP-style, Production rules^^(%POptional extensions follow Phase 1 using the extensibility notion of the CharterQQ(&I. FOL-style rules '*II. LP-style rules &  ((II. & LP-style rules )III. Production rules    0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> $(    6 ~  `}  T Click to edit Master title style! !  0  `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0 ^ `  X*  0 ^   Z*  0 ^ `  Z*H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.k#D Default Design 0 zr4 (  4 4 0() P    P*   4 0     R*  d 4 c $ ?   4 0  0  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S 4 61 _P   P*   4 66 _   R*  H 4 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.'"U} 0  $(  r  S 4(j, ( r  S (q, ( H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.k0D+D=' = @B +  0 (  r  S o( `}  (   04r( For RIF Phase 1 features distilled from the current UCR draft, the RIFRAF, and the public archive Builds on the Design Goals (cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Design_Goals) Approach to RIF Phase 2 also sketchedT$$o$=$$$2X 0H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<0+D=' = @B +4 0 KC(    <d($ 7PHASE 1`H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.!<',+D=' = @B +  0 0 b(     < ( 1(cf. http://www.ruleml.org/modularization/#Model)22X 00?  <(D-  1.1. Full Horn Logic (functions, no negation) 1.2. Datalog (Horn Logic without functions, no negation)(>=  6(  x>1. Specify syntax and semantics of Horn Logic and sublanguages?(<H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +{  0 P\"(  \x \ c $(D  ( j \ 0,(  2.1. Define purely syntactic extensions (cf. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL) 2.1.1. Monotonic Lloyd-Topor extensions (disjuncts in body, conjuncts in heads) 2.1.2. Named arguments (slots) in n-ary notation - Can be developed into frames with OIDs (as in F-logic) in Phase 2 2.1.3. Higher-order syntax (cf. HiLog) Phase 2 2.2. Support literals and datatypes (common functions and operators)^Z5 - +   R :& PJ?* ,4X 0:`H \ 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 0T(  Tx T c $<֒w  (  T <(K f2.3. Delineate appropriate semantics for different Horn-like rules (cf. #9.2) (could be moved to Phase 2) 2.3.1. First-order (all-model) semantics (cf. #5) 2.3.2. Minimal-model semantics 2.3.3. Semantics for production rulesP\ 4  !  ) H T 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 -%``(  ` ` <DJ  3.1. Adopting IRIs (incl. URIs, URLs) for Web-based addressing 3.2. IRI addressing of RIF constants and predicates 3.3. IRI addressing of other RIF features$, ` 6T  :3. Webizing features that should be (globally) addressable;;0H ` 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 %pd(  d d <#4 6 - Execution is 1-to-1 with model generation, semantics compatible with #1 - Basis for interoperation between production rules and Horn rules - Action part will then be generalized in Phase 2<S$L$<$ d 6(  m=4. Pure production rules with only asserts in the action part>>H d 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +*  0 A9h(  h h 6  b25. Integrity queries, a.k.a. integrity constraints33 h </  O(will not require extra effort)  h <x448K @ - These constraints are considered violated if the queries have answers (an answer is a witness to an integrity-constraint violation) - The allowed queries must have the syntactic form of a rule body - Semantics of a rule body as in #1. Pragmatics of a warning or an error>AZ$ L$ S$H h 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +=  0 TLl(  l l 6P  86. Scope feature for modularizing/ structuring rulebases99/  l <4Q i9(cf. TRIPLE models/contexts, FLORA modules, named graphs):: l <|7Y4 k - Will enable Load-and-Query rule engines (i.e., engines that can load and then query different rulebases at once) - Units for tagging provenance etc. (cf. #9) - Basis for scoped negation as failure in Phase 2<$ 0$ <$p yH l 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 p(  p p 6(  L7. Interoperability with RDF p <`>4 ^ F(work already ongoing) p <Dd@4  - Treat an RDF graph as a ruleset of binary or ternary facts - Treat blank nodes as existentials in rule bodies and as Skolem functions in rule heads - Accommodate SPARQL queries from the body of rules (cf. #8)<F$ h$ G$>E aH p 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +V  0 met(  t t 6{  M 8. Interoperability with OWL t <>4 ^ F(work already ongoing)P t <؍@b @ - Define a hybrid combination semantics (cf. http://rewerse.net/deliverables/m12/i3-d3.pdf and ftp://ftp.cs.sunysb.edu/pub/TechReports/kifer/msa-ruleml05.pdf) At this stage, interoperation between OWL and rules will be at the level of rule bodies posing ground (after instantiation) queries to OWL(A,$~$#X 01^&X 0iH t 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 x~(  x x 6 < 9. Metadata/semantic attributes for rule documents, scopes, rules, facts & lK (( ( ( ( x <H  K(could be moved to Phase 2) x <tk4  9.1. To enable searching for rulesets, Google Directory-style 9.2. To enable tagging rulesets with intended semantics (e.g., FOL, LP/well-founded). This may not be that important in Phase 1, but will certainly be in Phase 2 (cf. #2.3)(J"", >H x 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 |e(  | | 6P < 9. & Metadata/semantic attributes for rule documents, scopes, rules, factslK"(( ( ( ( | <  K(could be moved to Phase 2) | <伻|j x&9.3. To enable tagging rulesets to indicate syntactic features that should be supported by the recipient. This will support conformance-guided rule system interoperation. Tagging can be done by pointing to a suitable XML Schema document (cf. #1)''$H | 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +  0 (    6LŻ  F 10. XML Serialization  <Ȼ>X ^ n(cf. RuleML's serialization)  <Lλ2 P - RDF can be generated via XSLT!!$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.kxNi+D=' = @B +4 0 KC0(    <(̻$ 7PHASE 2`H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.!<',+D=' = @B +N  0 e]p(  x  c $Ի   =  0@ջ v The specific semantics will be indicated by a semantic attribute Define different kinds of extended RDF/OWL interoperability for the three different kinds of extended rules$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<0+D=' = @B +  0 .&(  x  c $<     0߻  vThese extensions could be specified in a separate RIF document working horizontally across the three subfamilies belowww$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.<0+D=' = @B +  0  (  r  S  `}     <  1. Based on Phase 1 2. Continued RDF Interoperability 3. SWRL-inspired rule extension of OWL-DL 4. Optional extensions - Fuzziness - Soft integrity constraints (expressing a kind of preferences) - ...P$ *$ 1$ $H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.#<q-}+D=' = @B +  0 ( (  x  c $ `}     <M d 1. Scoped negations 1.1. Well-founded semantics of negation as failure 1.2. Answer-set (stable model) semantics - Can also be extended for "classical" negation Note: We might just use stable models and consider well-founded as a more tractable approximationee$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.#<q-}+D=' = @B +L  0 c[(  x  c $  `}   ;  < Dm C 2. Syntactic extensions 2.1. Full Lloyd-Topor 2.2. Frame notation with OIDs (cf. F-logic) 3. RDF and OWL-DL Interoperability - extended from Phase 1 4. Optional extensions - Disjunctive rules (answer set semantics) - Fuzziness - ...<Du$N$}$,:$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.#<q-}+D=' = @B +'  0 >6(  x  c $ `}     <M z 1. Allow retract etc. as rule actions 2. Allow procedural attachments and events in rule bodies 3. Also consider actions in the body a la Transaction Logic - has logical semantics unlike #III.1 and is compatible with LP-style semantics 4. Optional extensions - Fuzziness - ...{{$H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.#<q-}+D=' = @B +rp@ %- @2:>B5FgKPU[`f'+jl?@ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\_Root EntrydO)Current UserUSummaryInformation(CPowerPoint Document(DocumentSummaryInformation8M