Difference between revisions of "PRD"
(→Operational semantics of atomic actions) 
(→Matching substitution) 

Line 301:  Line 301:  
'''Definition (Ground Substitution).''' A ''ground substitution'' is a substitution σ that assigns only ground terms to the variables in ''Dom''(σ): ∀ ''x'' ∈ ''Dom''(σ), ''Var''(σ(''x'')) = ∅ ☐  '''Definition (Ground Substitution).''' A ''ground substitution'' is a substitution σ that assigns only ground terms to the variables in ''Dom''(σ): ∀ ''x'' ∈ ''Dom''(σ), ''Var''(σ(''x'')) = ∅ ☐  
−  Because RIFPRD covers only externally defined interpreted functions, a ground  +  Because RIFPRD covers only externally defined interpreted functions, a ground positional term can always be replaced by the (nonpositional) ground term to which it evaluates. As a consequence, a ground RIFPRD formula can always be restricted, without loss of generality, to contain no positional term; that is, to be such that any ground positional terms have been replaced with the nonpositional ground terms to which they evaluate. In the remainder of this document, it will always be assumed that a ground condition formula never contains any positional term. As a consequence, a ground substitution never assigns a ground positional term to the variables in its domain. 
If ''t'' is a term or a condition formula, and if ''σ'' is a ground substitution such that ''Var(t) ∈ Dom(σ)'', ''σ(t)'' denotes the ground term or the ground condition formula obtained by substituting, in ''t'':  If ''t'' is a term or a condition formula, and if ''σ'' is a ground substitution such that ''Var(t) ∈ Dom(σ)'', ''σ(t)'' denotes the ground term or the ground condition formula obtained by substituting, in ''t'': 
Revision as of 08:26, 4 September 2012
__NUMBEREDHEADINGS__
 Document title:
 RIF Production Rule Dialect (Second Edition)
 Editors
 Christian de Sainte Marie, IBM/ILOG
 Gary Hallmark, Oracle
 Adrian Paschke, Freie Universitaet Berlin
 Abstract

This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the production rule dialect of the W3C rule interchange format (RIFPRD), a standard XML serialization format for production rule languages.
 Status of this Document
 This is a live wiki document. Although it often reflects the best understanding of the editors and members of the Working Group, it may be inaccurate and has not necessarily been reviewed. If you need a stable copy, use the most recent official version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rifprd.
Copyright © 2010 W3C^{®} (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
Contents
 1 Overview
 2 Conditions
 3 Actions
 4 Production rules and rule sets
 5 Document and imports
 6 Builtin functions, predicates and actions
 7 Conformance and interoperability
 8 XML Syntax
 9 Presentation syntax (Informative)
 10 Acknowledgements
 11 References
 12 Appendix: Modeltheoretic semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas
 13 Appendix: XML schema
 14 Appendix: Change Log (Informative)
1 Overview
This document specifies the production rule dialect of the W3C rule interchange format (RIFPRD), a standard XML serialization format for production rule languages.
The production rule dialect is one of a set of rule interchange dialects that also includes the RIF Core dialect ([RIFCore]) and the RIF basic logic dialect ([RIFBLD]).
RIFCore, the core dialect of the W3C rule interchange format, is designed to support the interchange of definite Horn rules without function symbols ("Datalog"). RIFCore has both a standard firstorder semantics and an operational semantics. Syntactically, RIFCore has a number of extensions of Datalog:
 frames as in Flogic [KLW95],
 internationalized resource identifiers (or IRIs, defined by [RFC3987]) as identifiers for concepts, and
 XML Schema datatypes [XMLSCHEMA2].
RIFCore is based on a rich set of datatypes and builtins that are aligned with Webaware rule system implementations [RIFDTB]. In addition, the RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility document [RIFRDFOWL] specifies the syntax and semantics of combinations of RIFCore, RDF, and OWL documents.
RIFCore is intended to be the common core of all RIF dialects, and it has been designed, in particular, to be a useful common subset of RIFBLD and RIFPRD. RIFPRD includes and extends RIFCore, and, therefore, RIFPRD inherits all RIFCore features. These features make RIFPRD a Webaware (even a semantic Webaware) language. However, it should be kept in mind that RIF is designed to enable interoperability among rule languages in general, and its uses are not limited to the Web.
This document targets designers and developers of RIFPRD implementations. A RIFPRD implementation is a software application that serializes production rules as RIFPRD XML (producer application) and/or that deserializes RIFPRD XML documents into production rules (consumer application).
1.1 Production rule interchange
Production rules have an if part, or condition, and a then part, or action. The condition is like the condition part of logic rules (as covered by RIFCore and its basic logic dialect extension, RIFBLD). The then part contains actions. An action can assert facts, modify facts, retract facts, and have other sideeffects. In general, an action is different from the conclusion of a logic rule, which contains only a logical statement. However, the conclusion of rules interchanged using RIFCore can be interpreted, according to RIFPRD operational semantics, as actions that assert facts in the knowledge base.
Example 1.1. The following are examples of production rules:
 A customer becomes a "Gold" customer when his cumulative purchases during the current year reach $5000.
 Customers that become "Gold" customers must be notified immediately, and a golden customer card will be printed and sent to them within one week.
 For shopping carts worth more than $1000, "Gold" customers receive an additional discount of 10% of the total amount. ☐
Because RIFPRD is a production rule interchange format, it specifies an abstract syntax that shares features with concrete production rule languages, and it associates the abstract constructs with normative semantics and a normative XML concrete syntax. Annotations (e.g. rule author) are the only constructs in RIFPRD without a formal semantics.
The abstract syntax is specified in mathematical English, and the abstract syntactic constructs that are defined in the sections Abstract Syntax of Conditions, Abstract Syntax of Actions and Abstract Syntax of Rules and Rulesets, are mapped into the concrete XML constructs in the section XML syntax. A lightweight notation is used, instead of the XML syntax, to tie the abstract syntax to the specification of the semantics. A more complete presentation syntax is specified using an EBNF in Presentation Syntax. However, only the XML syntax and the associated semantics are normative. The normative XML schema is included in Appendix: XML Schema.
Example 1.2. In RIFPRD presentation syntax, the first rule in example 1.1. can be represented as follows:
Prefix(ex <http://example.com/2008/prd1#>) (* ex:rule_1 *) Forall ?customer ?purchasesYTD ( If And( ?customer#ex:Customer ?customer[ex:purchasesYTD>?purchasesYTD] External(pred:numericgreaterthan(?purchasesYTD 5000)) ) Then Do( Modify(?customer[ex:status>"Gold"]) ) )
☐
Production rules are statements of programming logic that specify the execution of one or more actions when their conditions are satisfied. Production rules have an operational semantics, that the OMG Production Rule Representation specification [OMGPRR] summarizes as follows:
 Match: the rules are instantiated based on the definition of the rule conditions and the current state of the data source;
 Conflict resolution: a decision algorithm, often called the conflict resolution strategy, is applied to select which rule instance will be executed;
 Act: the state of the data source is changed, by executing the selected rule instance's actions. If a terminal state has not been reached, the control loops back to the first step (Match).
In the section Operational semantics of rules and rule sets, the semantics for rules and rule sets is specified, accordingly, as a labeled terminal transition system (PLO04), where state transitions result from executing the action part of instantiated rules. When several rules are found to be executable at the same time, during the rule execution process, a conflict resolution strategy is used to select the rule to execute. The section Conflict resolution specifies how a conflict resolution strategy can be attached to a rule set. RIFPRD defines a default conflict resolution strategy.
In the section Semantics of condition formulas, the semantics of the condition part of rules in RIFPRD is specified operationally, in terms of matching substitutions. To emphasize the overlap between the rule conditions of RIFBLD and RIFPRD, and to share the same RIF definitions for datatypes and builtins [RIFDTB], an alternative, and equivalent, specification of the semantics of rule conditions in RIFPRD, using a model theory, is provided in the appendix Modeltheoretic semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas.
The semantics of condition formulas and the semantics of rules and rule sets make no assumption regarding how condition formulas are evaluated. In particular, they do not require that condition formula be evaluated using pattern matching. However, RIFPRD conformance, as defined in the section Conformance and interoperability, requires only support for safe rules, that is, forwardchaining rules where the conditions can be evaluated based on pattern matching only.
In the section Operational semantics of actions, the semantics of the action part of rules in RIFPRD is specified using a transition relation between successive states of the data source, represented by ground condition formulas, thus making the link between the modeltheoretic semantics of conditions and the operational semantics of rules and rule sets.
The abstract syntax of RIFPRD documents, and the semantics of the combination of multiple RIFPRD documents, is specified in the section Document and imports.
In addition to externally specified functions and predicates, and in particular, in addition to the functions and predicates builtins defined in [RIFDTB], RIFPRD supports externally specified actions, and defines one action builtin, as specified in the section Builtin functions, predicates and actions.
1.2 Running example
The same example rules will be used throughout the document to illustrate the syntax and the semantics of RIFPRD.
The rules are about the status of customers at a shop, and the discount awarded to them. The rule set contains four rules, to be applied when a customer checks out:
 Gold rule: A "Silver" customer with a shopping cart worth at least $2,000 is awarded the "Gold" status.
 Discount rule: "Silver" and "Gold" customers are awarded a 5% discount on the total worth of their shopping cart.
 New customer and widget rule: A "New" customer who buys a widget is awarded a 10% discount on the total worth of her shopping cart, but she looses any voucher she may have been awarded.
 Unknown status rule: A message must be printed, identifying any customer whose status is unknown (that is, neither "New", "Bronze", "Silver" or "Gold"), and the customer must be assigned the status: "New".
The Gold rule must be applied first; that is, e.g., a customer with "Silver" status and a shopping cart worth exactly $2,000 should be promoted to "Gold" status, before being given the 5% discount that would disallow the application of the Gold rule (since the total worth of his shopping cart would then be only $1,900).
In the remainder of this document, the prefix ex1 stands for the fictitious namespace of this example: http://example.com/2009/prd2#.
2 Conditions
This section specifies the syntax and semantics of the condition language of RIFPRD.
The RIFPRD condition language specification depends on Section Constants, Symbol Spaces, and Datatypes, in the RIF data types and builtins specification [RIFDTB].
2.1 Abstract syntax
The alphabet of the RIFPRD condition language consists of:
 a countably infinite set of constant symbols Const,
 a countably infinite set of variable symbols Var (disjoint from Const),
 and syntactic constructs to denote:
 lists,
 function calls,
 relations, including equality, class membership and subclass relations
 conjunction, disjunction and negation,
 and existential conditions.
For the sake of readability and simplicity, this specification introduces a notation for these constructs. The notation is not intended to be a concrete syntax, so it leaves out many details. The only concrete syntax for RIFPRD is the XML syntax.
RIFPRD supports externally defined functions only (including the builtin functions specified in [RIFDTB]). RIFPRD, unlike RIFBLD, does not support uninterpreted function symbols (sometimes called logically defined functions).
RIFPRD supports a form of negation. Neither RIFCore nor RIFBLD support negation, because logic rule languages use many different and incompatible kinds of negation. See also the RIF framework for logic dialects [RIFFLD].
2.1.1 Terms
The most basic construct in the RIFPRD condition language is the term. RIFPRD defines several kinds of term: constants, variables, lists and positional terms.
Definition (Term).
 Constants and variables. If t ∈ Const or t ∈ Var then t is a simple term;
 List terms. A list has the form List(t_{1} ... t_{m}), where m≥0 and t_{1}, ..., t_{m} are ground terms, i.e. without variables. A list of the form List() (i.e., a list in which m=0) is called the empty list;
 Positional terms. If t ∈ Const and t_{1}, ..., t_{n}, n≥0, are terms then t(t_{1} ... t_{n}) is a positional term.
Here, the constant t represents a function and t_{1}, ..., t_{n} represent argument values. ☐
To emphasize interoperability with RIFBLD, positional terms may also be written: External(t(t_{1}...t_{n})).
Example 2.1.
 List("New" "Bronze" "Silver" "Gold") is a term that denotes the list of the values for a customer's status that are known to the system. The elements of the list, "New", "Bronze", "Silver" and "Gold" are terms denoting string constants;
 func:numericmultiply(?value, 0.90) is a positional term that denotes the product of the value assigned to the variable ?value and the constant 0.90. That positional term can be used, for instance, to represent the new value, taking the discount into account, to be assigned a customer's shopping cart, in the rule New customer and widget rule. An alternative notation is to mark explicitly the positional term as externally defined, by wrapping it with the External indication: External(func:numericmultiply(?value, 0.90)) ☐
2.1.2 Atomic formulas
Atomic formulas are the basic tests of the RIFPRD condition language.
Definition (Atomic formula). An atomic formula can have several different forms and is defined as follows:
 Positional atomic formulas. If t ∈ Const and t_{1}, ..., t_{n}, n≥0, are terms then t(t_{1} ... t_{n}) is a positional atomic formula (or simply an atom)
 Equality atomic formulas. t = s is an equality atomic formula (or simply an equality), if t and s are terms
 Class membership atomic formulas. t#s is a membership atomic formula (or simply membership) if t and s are terms. The term t is the object and the term s is the class
 Subclass atomic formulas. t##s is a subclass atomic formula (or simply a subclass) if t and s are terms
 Frame atomic formulas. t[p_{1}>v_{1} ... p_{n}>v_{n}] is a frame atomic formula (or simply a frame) if t, p_{1}, ..., p_{n}, v_{1}, ..., v_{n}, n ≥ 0, are terms. The term t is the object of the frame; the p_{i} are the property or attribute names; and the v_{i} are the property or attribute values. In this document, an attribute/value pair is sometimes called a slot
 Externally defined atomic formulas. If t is a positional atomic formula then External(t) is an externally defined atomic formula. ☐
Class membership, subclass, and frame atomic formulas are used to represent classifications, class hierarchies and objectattributevalue relations.
Externally defined atomic formulas are used, in particular, for representing builtin predicates.
In the RIFBLD specification, as is common practice in logic languages, atomic formulas are also called terms.
Example 2.2.
 The membership formula ?customer # ex1:Customer tests whether the individual bound to the variable ?customer is a member of the class denoted by ex1:Customer.
 The atom ex1:Gold(?customer) tests whether the customer represented by the variable ?customer has the "Gold" status.
 Alternatively, gold status can be tested in a way that is closer to an objectoriented representation using the frame formula ?customer[ex1:status>"Gold"].
 The following atom uses the builtin predicate pred:listcontains to validate the status of a customer against a list of allowed customer statuses: External(pred:listcontains(List("New", "Bronze", "Silver", "Gold"), ?status)). ☐
2.1.3 Formulas
Composite truthvalued constructs are called formulas, in RIFPRD.
Note that terms (constants, variables, lists and functions) are not formulas.
More general formulas are constructed out of atomic formulas with the help of logical connectives.
Definition (Condition formula). A condition formula can have several different forms and is defined as follows:
 Atomic formula: If φ is an atomic formula then it is also a condition formula.
 Conjunction: If φ_{1}, ..., φ_{n}, n ≥ 0, are condition formulas then so is And(φ_{1} ... φ_{n}), called a conjunctive formula. As a special case, And() is allowed and is treated as a tautology, i.e., a formula that is always true.
 Disjunction: If φ_{1}, ..., φ_{n}, n ≥ 0, are condition formulas then so is Or(φ_{1} ... φ_{n}), called a disjunctive formula. As a special case, Or() is permitted and is treated as a contradiction, i.e., a formula that is always false.
 Negation: If φ is a condition formula, then so is Not(φ), called a negative formula.
 Existentials: If φ is a condition formula and ?V_{1}, ..., ?V_{n}, n>0, are variables then Exists ?V_{1} ... ?V_{n}(φ) is an existential formula. ☐
In the definition of a formula, the component formulas φ and φ_{i} are said to be subformulas of the respective condition formulas that are built using these components.
Example 2.3.
 The condition of the New customer and widget rule: A "New" customer who buys a widget, can be represented by the following RIFPRD condition formula:
And( ?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status>"New"] Exists ?shoppingCart ?item ( And ( ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart>?shoppingCart] ?shoppingCart[ex1:containsItem>?item] ?item # ex1:Widget) ) ) )
☐
The function Var, that maps a term, an atomic formula or a condition formula to the set of its free variables is defined as follows:
 if e ∈ Const, then Var(e) = ∅;
 if e ∈ Var, then Var(e) = {e};
 if e is a list term, then Var(e) = ∅;
 if f(arg_{1}...arg_{n}), n ≥ 0, is a positional term, then, Var(f(arg_{1}...arg_{n}) = ∪_{i=1...n} Var(arg_{i});
 if p(arg_{1}...arg_{n}), n ≥ 0, is an atom, then, Var(p(arg_{1}...arg_{n}) = Var(External(p(arg_{1}...arg_{n})) = ∪_{i=1...n} Var(arg_{i});
 if t_{1} and t_{2} are terms, then Var(t_{1} [=###] t_{2}) = Var(t_{1}) ∪ Var(t_{2});
 if o', k_{i}, i = 1...n, and v_{i}, i = 1...n, n ≥ 1, are terms, then Var(o[k_{1}>v_{1} ... k_{n}>v_{n}]) = Var(o) ∪_{i=1...n} Var(k_{i}) ∪_{i=1...n} Var(v_{i}).
 if f_{i}, i = 0...n, n ≥ 0, are condition formulas, then Var([AndOr](f_{1}...f_{n})) = ∪_{i=0...n} Var(f_{i});
 if f is a condition formula, then Var(Not(f)) = Var(f);
 if f is a condition formula and x_{i} ∈ Var for i = 1...n, n ≥ 1, then, Var(Exists x_{1} ... x_{n} (f)) = Var(f)  {x_{1}...x_{n}}.
Definition (Ground formula). A condition formula φ is a ground formula if and only if Varφ = {} and φ does not contain any existential subformula. ☐
In other words, a ground formula does not contain any variable term.
2.1.4 Wellformed formulas
Not all formulas are wellformed in RIFPRD: it is required that no constant appear in more than one context. What this means precisely is explained below.
The set of all constant symbols, Const, is partitioned into the following subsets:
 A subset of individuals. The symbols in Const that belong to the primitive datatypes are required to be individuals;
 A subset for external function symbols;
 A subset of plain predicate symbols;
 A subset for external predicate symbols.
As seen from the following definitions, these subsets are not specified explicitly but, rather, are inferred from the occurrences of the symbols.
Definition (Context of a symbol).
The context of an occurrence of a symbol, s∈Const, in a formula, φ, is determined as follows:
 If s occurs as a predicate in an atomic subformula of the form s(...) then s occurs in the context of a (plain) predicate symbol;
 If s occurs as a predicate in an atomic subformula External(s(...)) then s occurs in the context of an external predicate symbol;
 If s occurs as a function in a term (which is not a subformula) s(...) (or External(s(...))) then s occurs in the context of an (external) function symbol;
 If s occurs in any other context (e.g. in a frame: s[...], ...[s>...], or ...[...>s]; or in a positional atom: p(...s...)), it is said to occur as an individual. ☐
Definition (Wellformed formula). A formula φ is wellformed iff:
 every constant symbol mentioned in φ occurs in exactly one context;
 whenever a formula contains a positional term, t (or External(t)), or an external atomic formula, External(t), t must be an instance of a schema in the coherent set of external schemas (Section Schemas for Externally Defined Terms in [RIFDTB]) associated with the language of RIFPRD;
 if t is an instance of a schema in the coherent set of external schemas associated with the language then t can occur only as an external term or atomic formula. ☐
Definition (RIFPRD condition language). The RIFPRD condition language consists of the set of all wellformed formulas. ☐
2.2 Operational semantics of condition formulas
This section specifies the semantics of the condition formulas in a RIFPRD document.
Informally, a condition formula is evaluated with respect to a state of facts and it is satisfied, or true, if and only if:
 it is an atomic condition formula and its variables are bound to individuals such that, when these constants are substituted for the variables, either
 it matches a fact, or
 it is implied by some background knowledge, or
 it is an externally defined predicate, and its evaluation yelds true, or
 it is a compound condition formula: conjunction, disjunction, negation or existential; and it is evaluated as expected, based on the truth value of its atomic components.
The semantics is specified in terms of matching substitutions in the sections below. The specification makes no assumption regarding how matching substitutions are determined. In particular, it does not require from wellformed condition formulas that they can be evaluated using pattern matching only. However, RIFPRD requires safeness from wellformed rules, which implies that all the variables in the lefthand side can be bound by pattern matching.
For compatibility with other RIF specifications (in particular, RIF data types and builtins [RIFDTB] and RIF RDF and OWL compatibility [RIFRDFOWL]), and to make explicit the interoperability with RIF logic dialects (in particular RIF Core [RIFCore] and RIFBLD [RIFBLD]), the semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas is also specified using model theory, in appendix Model theoretic semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas.
The two specifications are equivalent and normative.
2.2.1 Matching substitution
Let Term be the set of the terms in the RIFPRD condition language (as defined in section Terms).
Definition (Substitution). A substitution is a finitely nonidentical assignment of terms to variables; i.e., a function σ from Var to Term such that the set {x ∈ Var  x ≠ σ(x)} is finite. This set is called the domain of σ and denoted by Dom(σ). Such a substitution is also written as a set such as σ = {t_{i}/x_{i}}_{i=1..n} where Dom(σ) = {x_{i}}_{i=1..n} and σ(x_{i}) = t_{i}, i = 1..n. ☐
Definition (Ground Substitution). A ground substitution is a substitution σ that assigns only ground terms to the variables in Dom(σ): ∀ x ∈ Dom(σ), Var(σ(x)) = ∅ ☐
Because RIFPRD covers only externally defined interpreted functions, a ground positional term can always be replaced by the (nonpositional) ground term to which it evaluates. As a consequence, a ground RIFPRD formula can always be restricted, without loss of generality, to contain no positional term; that is, to be such that any ground positional terms have been replaced with the nonpositional ground terms to which they evaluate. In the remainder of this document, it will always be assumed that a ground condition formula never contains any positional term. As a consequence, a ground substitution never assigns a ground positional term to the variables in its domain.
If t is a term or a condition formula, and if σ is a ground substitution such that Var(t) ∈ Dom(σ), σ(t) denotes the ground term or the ground condition formula obtained by substituting, in t:
 σ(x) for all x ∈ Var(t), and
 the externally defined results of interpreting a function with ground arguments, for all externally defined terms.
Definition (Matching substitution). Let ψ be a RIFPRD condition formula; let σ be a ground substitution such that Var(ψ) ⊆ Dom(σ); and let Φ be a set of ground RIFPRD atomic formulas.
We say that the ground substitution σ matches ψ to Φ if and only if one of the following is true:
 ψ is an atomic formula and either
 σ(ψ) ∈ Φ, or
 ψ is a frame with multiple slots, o[s_{1}>v_{1}...s_{n}>v_{n}], n > 1, and there is one i, 1≤i≤n, such that σ matches the conjunction And(o[s_{i}>v_{i}] o[s_{1}>v_{1}...s_{i1}>v_{i1} s_{i+1}>v_{i+1}...s_{n}>v_{n}] to Φ; or
 ψ is an equality formula, t_{1} = t_{2}, and the ground terms σ(t_{1}) and σ(t_{2}) have the same value; or
 ψ is an external atomic formula and the external definition maps σ(ψ) to t (or true),
 ψ is Not(f) and σ does not match the condition formula f to Φ,
 ψ is And(f_{1} ... f_{n}) and either n = 0 or ∀ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, σ matches f_{i} to Φ,
 ψ is Or(f_{1} ... f_{n}) and n > 0 and ∃ i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, such that σ matches f_{i} to Φ, or
 ψ is Exists ?v_{1} ... ?v_{n} (f), and there is a substitution σ' that extends σ in such a way that σ' agrees with σ where σ is defined, and Var(f) ⊆ Dom(σ'); and σ' matches f to Φ. ☐
2.2.2 Condition satisfaction
We define, now, what it means for a state of the fact base to satisfy a condition formula. The satisfaction of condition formulas in a state of the fact base provides formal underpinning to the operational semantics of rule sets interchanged using RIFPRD.
Definition (State of the fact base). A state of the fact base, w_{Φ}, is associated to every set of ground atomic formulas, Φ, that contains no frame with multiple slots and that satisfies the following conditions, for all triple of constants c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}:
 if c_{1}##c_{2} ∈ Φ and c_{2}##c_{3} ∈ Φ, then c_{1}##c_{3} ∈ Φ;
 and if c_{1}#c_{2} ∈ Φ and c_{2}##c_{3} ∈ Φ, then c_{1}#c_{3} ∈ Φ.
We say that w_{Φ} is represented by Φ; or, equivalently, by the conjunction of all the ground atomic formulas in Φ. ☐
Each ground atomic formula in Φ represents a single fact, and, often, the ground atomic formulas, themselves, are called facts, as well. Notice that the restriction that Φ can contain only single slot frames, in the definition of a state of the fact base is not a limitation: given the definition of a matching substitution, a frame with multiple slots is only syntactic shorthand for the semantically equivalent conjunction of single slot frames.
Definition (Condition satisfaction). A RIFPRD condition formula ψ is satisfied in a state of the fact base, w, if and only if w is represented by a set of ground atomic formulas Φ, and there is a ground substitution σ that matches ψ to Φ. ☐
Alternative, but equivalent, definitions of a state of the fact base and of the satisfaction of a condition are given in the appendix Model theoretic semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas: they provide the formal link between the model theory of RIFPRD condition formulas and the operational semantics of RIFPRD documents.
3 Actions
This section specifies the syntax and semantics of the RIFPRD action language. The conclusion of a production rule is often called the action part, the then part, or the righthand side, or RHS.
The RIFPRD action language is used to add, delete and modify facts in the fact base. As a rule interchange format, RIFPRD does not make any assumption regarding the nature of the data sources that the producer or the consumer of a RIFPRD document uses (e.g. a rule engine's working memory, an external data base, etc). As a consequence, the syntax of the actions that RIFPRD supports are defined with respect to the RIFPRD condition formulas that represent the facts that the actions affect. In the same way, the semantics of the actions is specified in terms of how their execution affects the evaluation of rule conditions.
3.1 Abstract syntax
The alphabet of the RIFPRD action language includes symbols to denote:
 the assertion of a fact represented by a positional atom, a frame, or a membership atomic formula,
 the retraction of a fact represented by a positional atom or a frame,
 the retraction of all the facts about the values of a given slot of a given frame object,
 the addition of a new frame object,
 the removal of a frame object and the retraction of all the facts about it, represented by the corresponding frame and class membership atomic formulas,
 the replacement of all the values of an object's attribute by a single, new value,
 the execution of an externally defined action, and
 a sequence of these actions, including the declaration of local variables and a mechanism to bind a local variable to a frame slot value or a new frame object.
3.1.1 Actions
The RIFPRD action language includes constructs for actions that are atomic, from a transactional point of view, and constructs that represent compounds of atomic actions. Action constructs take constructs from the RIFPRD condition language as their arguments.
Definition (Atomic action). An atomic action is a construct that represents an atomic transaction. An atomic action can have several different forms and is defined as follows:
 Assert simple fact: If φ is a positional atom, a single slot frame or a membership atomic formula in the RIFPRD condition language, then Assert(φ) is an atomic action. φ is called the target of the action.
 Retract simple fact: If φ is a positional atom or a single slot frame in the RIFPRD condition language, then Retract(φ) is an atomic action. φ is called the target of the action.
 Retract all slot values: If o and s are terms in the RIFPRD condition language, then Retract(o s) is an atomic action. The pair (o, s) is called the target of the action.
 Retract object: If t is a term in the RIFPRD condition language, then Retract(t) is an atomic action. t is called the target of the action.
 Execute: if φ is a positional atom in the RIFPRD condition language, then Execute(φ) is an atomic action. φ is called the target of the action. ☐
Definition (Compound action). A compound action is a construct that can be replaced equivalently by a predefined, and fixed, sequence of atomic actions. In RIFPRD, a compound action can have three different forms, defined as follows:
 Assert compound fact: If φ is a frame with multiple slots: φ = o[s_{1}>v_{1}...s_{n}>v_{n}], n > 1; then Assert(φ) is a compound action, defined by the sequence Assert(o[s_{1}>v_{1}]) ... Assert(o[s_{n}>v_{n}]). φ is called the target of the action.
 Retract compound fact: If φ is a frame with multiple slots: φ = o[s_{1}>v_{1}...s_{n}>v_{n}], n > 1; then Retract(φ) is a compound action, defined by the sequence Retract(o[s_{1}>v_{1}]) ... Retract(o[s_{n}>v_{n}]). φ is called the target of the action.
 Modify fact: if φ is a frame in the RIFPRD condition language: φ = o[s_{1}>v_{1}...s_{n}>v_{n}], n > 0; then Modify(φ) is a compound action, defined by the sequence: Retract(o s_{1}) ... Retract(o s_{n}), followed by Assert(φ). φ is called the target of the action. ☐
Definition (Action). A action is either an atomic action or a compound action. ☐
Definition (Ground action). An action with target t is a ground action if and only if
 t is an atomic formula and Var(t) = ∅;
 or t = (o, s) is a pair of terms and Var(o) = Var(s) = ∅.
☐
Example 3.1.
 Assert( ?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher] ) and Retract( ?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher] ) denote two atomic actions with the frame ?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher] as their target,
 Retract( ?customer ex1:voucher ) denotes an atomic action with the pair of terms (?customer, ex1:voucher) as its target,
 Modify(?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher]) denotes a compound action with the frame ?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher] as its target. Modify(?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher]) can always be equivalently replaced by the sequence: Retract( ?customer ex1:voucher ) then Assert( ?customer[ex1:voucher>?voucher] );
 Retract( ?voucher ) denotes an atomic action whose target is the individual bound to the variable ?voucher,
 Execute( act:print("Hello, world!") ) denotes an atomic action whose target is the externally defined action act:print. ☐
3.1.2 Action blocks
The action block is the top level construct to represent the conclusions of RIFPRD rules. An action block contains a nonempty sequence of actions. It may also include action variable declarations.
The action variable declaration construct is used to declare variables that are local to the action block, called action variables, and to assign them a value within the action block.
Definition (Action variable declaration). An action variable declaration is a pair, (v p) made of an action variable, v, and an action variable binding (or, simply, binding), p, where p has one of two forms:
 frame object declaration: if the action variable, v, is to be assigned the identifier of a new frame, then the action variable binding is a frame object declaration: New(). In that case, the notation for the action variable declaration is: (?o New());
 frame slot value: if the action variable, v, is to be assigned the value of a slot of a ground frame, then the action variable binding is a frame: p = o[s>v], where o is a term that represents the identifier of the ground frame and s is a term that represents the name of the slot. The associated notation is: (?value o[s>?value]). ☐
Definition (Action block). If (v_{1} p_{1}), ..., (v_{n} p_{n}), n ≥ 0, are action variable declarations, and if a_{1}, ..., a_{m}, m ≥ 1, are actions, then Do((v_{1} p_{1}) ... (v_{n} p_{n}) a_{1} ... a_{m}) denotes an action block. ☐
Example 3.2. In the following action block, a local variable ?oldValue is bound to a value of the attribute value of the object bound to the variable ?shoppingCart. The ?oldValue is then used to compute a new value, and the Modify action is used to overwrite the old value with the new value in the fact base:
Do( (?oldValue ?shoppingCart[ex1:value>?oldValue]) Modify( ?shoppingCart[ex1:value>func:numericmultiply(?oldValue 0.90)] ) )
☐
3.1.3 Wellformed action blocks
Not all action blocks are wellformed in RIFPRD:
 one and only one action variable binding can assign a value to each action variable, and
 the assertion of a membership atomic formula is meaningful only if it is about a frame object that is created in the same action block.
The notion of wellformedness, already defined for condition formulas, is extended to actions, action variable declarations and action blocks.
Definition (Wellformed action). An action α is wellformed if and only if one of the following is true:
 α is an Assert and its target is a wellformed atom, a wellformed frame or a wellformed membership atomic formula,
 α is a Retract with one single argument and its target is a wellformed term or a wellformed atom or a wellformed frame atomic formula,
 α is a Retract with two arguments: o and s, and both are terms and there is at least one term, v, such that o[s>v] is a wellformed frame atomic formula,
 α is a Modify and its target is a wellformed frame, or
 α is an Execute and its content is an instance of the coherent set of external schemas (Section Schemas for Externally Defined Terms in RIF data types and builtins [RIFDTB]) associated with the RIFPRD language (section Builtin functions, predicates and actions). ☐
Definition (Wellformed action variable declaration). An action variable declaration (?v p) is wellformed if and only if one of the following is true:
 the action variable binding, p, is the declaration of a new frame object: p = New(), or
 the action variable binding, p, is a well formed frame atomic formula, p = o[a_{1}>t_{1}...a_{n}>t_{n}], n ≥ 1, and the action variable, v occurs in the position of a slot value, and nowhere else, that is: v ∈ {t_{1} ... t_{n}} and ∀ t_{i}, either v = t_{i} or v ∉ Var(t_{i}) and v ∉ Var(o) ∪ Var(a_{1}) ∪ ... ∪ Var(a_{n}). ☐
For the definition of a wellformed action block, the function Var(f), that has been defined for condition formulas, is extended to actions and frame object declarations as follows:
 if f is an action with target t and t is an atomic formula, then Var(f) = Var(t);
 if f is an action with target t and t is a pair, (o, s) of terms, then Var(f) = Var(o) ∪ Var(s);
 if f is a frame object declaration, New(), then Var(f) = ∅.
Definition (Wellformed action block). An action block is wellformed if and only if all of the following are true:
 all the action variable declarations, if any, are wellformed,
 each action variable, if any, is assigned a value by one and only one action variable binding, that is: if b_{1} = (v_{1} p_{1}) and b_{2} = (v_{2} p_{2}) are two action variable declarations in the action block with different bindings: p_{1} ≠ p_{2}, then v_{1} ≠ v_{2},
 in addition, the action variable declarations, if any, are partially ordered by the ordering defined as follows: if b_{1} = (v_{1} p_{1}) and b_{2} = (v_{2} p_{2}) are two action variable declarations in the action block, then b_{1} ≤ b_{2} if and only if v_{1} ∈ Var(p_{2}),
 all the actions in the action block are wellformed actions, and
 if an action in the action block asserts a membership atomic formula, Assert(t_{1} # t_{2}), then the object term in the membership atomic formula, t_{1}, is an action variable that is declared in the action block and the action variable binding is a frame object declaration. ☐
Definition (RIFPRD action language). The RIFPRD action language consists of the set of all the wellformed action blocks. ☐
3.2 Operational semantics of atomic actions
This section specifies the semantics of the atomic actions in a RIFPRD document.
The effect of the ground atomic actions in the RIFPRD action language is to modify the state of the fact base, in such a way that it changes the set of conditions that are satisfied before and after each atomic action is performed.
As a consequence, the semantics of the ground atomic actions in the RIFPRD action language determines a relation, called the RIFPRD transition relation: →_{RIFPRD} ⊆ W × L × W, where W denotes the set of all the states of the fact base, and where L denotes the set of all the ground atomic actions in the RIFPRD action language.
The semantics of a compound action follows directly from the semantics of the atomic actions that compose it.
Individual states of the fact base are represented by sets of ground atomic formulas (Section Satisfaction of a condition). In the following, the operational semantics of RIFPRD actions, rules, and rule sets is specified by describing the changes they induce in the fact base.
Definition (RIFPRD transition relation). The semantics of RIFPRD atomic actions is specified by the transition relation →_{RIFPRD} ⊆ W × L × W. (w, α, w') ∈ →_{RIFPRD} if and only if w ∈ W, w' ∈ W, α is a ground atomic action, and one of the following is true, where Φ is a set of ground atomic formulas that represents w and Φ' is a set of ground atomic formulas that represent w':
 α is Assert(φ), where φ is a ground atomic formula, and Φ' = Φ ∪ {φ};
 α is Retract(φ), where φ is a ground atomic formula, and Φ' = Φ \ {φ};
 α is Retract(o s), where o and s are constants, and Φ' = (Φ \ {o[s>v]  for all the values of v});
 α is Retract(o), where o is a constant, and Φ' = Φ \ {o[s>v]  for all the values of terms s and v}  {o#c  for all the values of term c};
 α is Execute(φ), where φ is a ground atomic builtin action, and Φ' = Φ. ☐
Rule 1 says that all the atomic condition formulas that were satisfied before an assertion will be satisfied after, and that, in addition, the atomic condition formulas that are satisfied by the asserted ground formula will be satisfied after the assertion. No other atomic condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action.
Rule 2 says that all the atomic condition formulas that were satisfied before a retraction will be satisfied after, except if they are satisfied only by the retracted fact. No other atomic condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action.
Rule 3 says that all the condition formulas that were satisfied before the retraction of all the values of a given slot of a given object will be satisfied after, except if they are satisfied only by one of the frame formulas about the object and the slot that are the target of the action, or a conjunction of such formulas. No other condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action.
Rule 4 says that all the condition formulas that were satisfied before the removal of a frame object will be satisfied after, except if they are satisfied only by one of the frame or membership formulas about the removed object or a conjunction of such formulas. No other condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action.
Rule 5 says that all the condition formulas that were satisfied before the execution of an action builtin will be satisfied after. No other condition formula will be satisfied after the execution of the action.
Example 3.3. Assume an initial state of the fact base that is represented by the following set, w_{0}, of ground atomic formulas, where _c1, _v1 and _s1 denote individuals and where ex1:Customer, ex1:Voucher and ex1:ShoppingCart represent classes:
Initial state:
 w_{0} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _v1#ex1:Voucher _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:voucher>_v1] _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _v1[ex1:value>5] _s1[ex1:value>500]}
 Assert( _c1[ex1:status>"New"] ) denotes an atomic action that adds to the fact base, a fact that is represented by the ground atomic formula: _c1[ex1:status>"New"]. After the action is executed, the new state of the fact base is represented by
 w_{1} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _v1#ex1:Voucher _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:voucher>_v1] _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _v1[ex1:value>5] _s1[ex1:value>500] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
 Retract( _c1[ex1:voucher>_v1] ) denotes an atomic action that removes from the fact base, the fact that is represented by the ground atomic formula _c1[ex1:voucher>_v1]. After the action, the new state of the fact base is represenetd by:
 w_{2} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _v1#ex1:Voucher _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _v1[ex1:value>5] _s1[ex1:value>500] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
 Retract( _v1 ) denotes an atomic action that removes the individual denoted by the constant _v1 from the fact base. All the class membership and the objectattributevalue facts where _v1 is the object are removed. After the action, the new state of the fact base is represenetd by:
 w_{3} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>500] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
 Retract( _s1 ex1:value ) denotes an atomic action that removes all the objectattributevalue facts that assign a ex1:value to the ex1:ShoppingCart _s1. After the action, the new state of the fact base is represented by
 w_{4} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
 Assert( _s1[ex1:value>450] ) adds in the fact base_the single fact that is represented by the ground frame: <tt>_s1[ex1:value>450]. After the action, the new state of the fact base is represented by:
 w_{5} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>450] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
 Execute( act:print(func:concat("New customer: " _c1)) ) denotes an action that does not impact the state of the fact base, but that prints a string to an output stream. After the action, the new state of the fact base is represented by:
 w_{6} = w_{5} = {_c1#ex1:Customer _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _c1[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>450] _c1[ex1:status>"New"]}
Notice that steps 4 and 5 can be equivalently replaced by the single compound action:
 Modify( _s1[ex1:value>450] ), which denotes an action that replaces all the objectattributevalue facts that assign a ex1:value to the ex1:ShoppingCart _s1 by the single fact that is represented by the ground frame: _s1[ex1:value>450].
☐
4 Production rules and rule sets
This section specifies the syntax and semantics of RIFPRD rules and rule sets.
4.1 Abstract syntax
The alphabet of the RIFPRD rule language includes the alphabets of the RIFPRD condition language and the RIFPRD action language and adds symbols for:
 combining a condition and an action block into a rule,
 declaring (some) variables that are free in a rule R, specifying their bindings, and combining them with R into a new rule R' (with fewer free variables),
 grouping rules and associating specific operational semantics to groups of rules.
4.1.1 Rules
Definition (Rule). A rule can be one of:
 an unconditional action block,
 a conditional action block: if condition is a formula in the RIFPRD condition language, and if action is a wellformed action block, then If condition, Then action is a rule,
 a rule with variable declaration: if ?v_{1} ... ?v_{n}, n ≥ 1, are variables; p_{1} ... p_{m}, m ≥ 1, are condition formulas (called patterns), and rule is a rule, then Forall ?v_{1}...?v_{n} such that (p_{1}...p_{m}) (rule) is a rule. ☐
Example 4.1. The Gold rule, from the running example: A "Silver" customer with a shopping cart worth at least $2,000 is awarded the "Gold" status, can be represented using the following rule with variable declaration:
Forall ?customer such that And( ?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status>"Silver"] ) (Forall ?shoppingCart such that And( ?shoppingCart # ex1:ShoppingCart ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart>?shoppingCart] ) (If Exists ?value (And( ?shoppingCart[ex1:value>?value] pred:numericgreaterthanorequal(?value 2000)) Then Do( Modify( ?customer[ex1:status>"Gold"] ) ) )
☐
The function Var(f), that has been defined for condition formulas and extended to actions, is further extended to rules, as follows:
 if f is an action block that declares action variables ?v_{1} ... ?v_{n}, n ≥ 0, and that contains actions a_{1} ... a_{m}, m ≥ 1, then Var(f) = ∪_{1 ≤ i ≤ m} Var(a_{i}) \ {?v_{1} ... ?v_{n}};
 if f is a conditional action block where c is the condition formula and a is the action block, then Var(f) = Var(c) ∪ Var(a);
 if f is a quantified rule where ?v_{1} ... ?v_{n}, n > 0, are the declared variables; p_{1} ... p_{m}, m ≥ 0, are the patterns, and r is the rule, then Var(f) = (Var(r) ∪ Var(p_{1}) ∪ ... ∪ Var(p_{m})) \ {?v_{1} ... ?v_{n}}.
4.1.2 Groups
As was already mentioned in the Overview, production rules have an operational semantics that can be described in terms of matching rules against states of the fact base, selecting rule instances to be executed, and executing rule instances' actions to transition to new states of the fact base.
When production rules are interchanged, the intended rule instance selection strategy, often called the conflict resolution strategy, needs to be interchanged along with the rules. In RIFPRD, the group construct is used to group sets of rules and to associate them with a conflict resolution strategy. Many production rule systems use priorities associated with rules as part of their conflict resolution strategy. In RIFPRD, the group is also used to carry the priority information that may be associated with the interchanged rules.
Definition (Group). A group consists of a, possibly empty, set of rules and groups, associated with a resolution conflict strategy and, a priority. If strategy is an IRI that identifies a conflict resolution strategy, if priority is an integer, and if each rg_{j}, 0 ≤ j ≤ n, is either a rule or a group, then any of the following represents a group:
 Group (rg_{0} ... rg_{n}), n ≥ 0;
 Group strategy (rg_{0} ... rg_{n}), n ≥ 0;
 Group priority (rg_{0} ... rg_{n}), n ≥ 0;
 Group strategy priority (rg_{0} ... rg_{n}), n ≥ 0.
If a conflict resolution strategy is not explicitly attached to a group, the strategy defaults to rif:forwardChaining (specified below, in section Conflict resolution). ☐
4.1.3 Safeness
The definitions in this section are unchanged from the definitions in the section Safeness in [RIFCore], except for the definition of RIFPRD rule safeness, that is extended from the definition of RIFCore rule safeness. The definitions are reproduced for the reader's convenience.
Intuitively, safeness of rules guarantees that all the variables in a rule can be bound, using pattern matching only, before they are used, in a test or in an action.
To define safeness, we need to define, first, the notion of binding patterns for externally defined functions and predicates, as well as under what conditions variables are considered bound.
Definition (Binding pattern). (from [RIFCore]) Binding patterns for externally defined functions and predicates are lists of the form (p_{1}, ..., p_{n}), such that p_{i}=b or p_{i}=u, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n: b stands for a "bound" and u stands for an "unbound" argument. ☐
Each external function or predicate has an associated list of valid binding patterns. We define here the binding patterns valid for the functions and predicates defined in [RIFDTB].
Every function or predicate f defined in [RIFDTB] has a valid binding pattern for each of its schemas with only the symbol b such that its length is the number of arguments in the schema. In addition,
 the external predicate pred:iristring has the valid binding patterns (b, u) and (u, b) and
 the external predicate pred:listcontains has the valid binding pattern (b, u).
The functions and predicates defined in [RIFDTB] have no other valid binding patterns.
To keep the definitions concise and intuitive, boundedness and safeness are defined, in [RIFCore], for condition formulas in disjunctive normal form, that can be existentially quantified themselves, but that contain, otherwise, no existential subformula. The definitions apply to any valid RIFCore condition formula, because they can always, in principle, be put in that form, by applying the following syntactic transforms, in sequence:
 if f contains existential subformulas, all the quantified variables are renamed, if necessary, and given a name that is unique in f, and the scope of the quantifiers is extended to f. Assume, for instance, that f has an existential subformula, sf = Exists v_{1}...v_{n} (sf'), n ≥ 1, such that the names v_{1}...v_{n} do not occur in f outside of sf. After the transform, f becomes Exists v_{1}...v_{n} (f'), where f' is f with sf replaced by sf' . The transform is applied iteratively to all the existential subformulas in f;
 the (possibly existentially quantified) resulting formula is rewritten in disjunctive normal form ([Mendelson97], p. 30).
In RIFPRD, the definitions apply to conditions formulas in the same form as in [RIFCore], with the exception that, in the disjunctive normal form, negated subformulas can be atomic formulas or existential formulas: in the latter case, the existentially quantified formula must be, itself, in disjunctive normal form, and contain no further existential subformulas. The definitions apply to any valid RIFPRD condition formula, because they can always, in principle, be put in that form, by applying the above syntactic transform, modified as follows to take negation into account:
 if the condition formula under consideration, f, contains negative subformulas, existential formulas that occur inside a negated formula are handled as if they were atomic formulas, with respect to the two processing steps. Extending the scope of an existential quantifier beyond a negation would require its transformation into an universal quantifier, and universal formulas are not part of RIFPRD condition language;
 in addition, the two preprocessing steps are applied, separately, to these existentially quantified formulas, to be able to determine the status of the existentially quantified variables with respect to boundedness.
Definition (Boundedness). (from [RIFCore]) An external term External(f(t_{1},...,t_{n})) is bound in a condition formula, if and only if f has a valid binding pattern (p_{1}, ..., p_{n}) and, for all j, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, such that p_{j}=b, t_{j} is bound in the formula.
A variable, v, is bound in an atomic formula, a, if and only if
 a is neither an equality nor an external predicate, and v occurs as an argument in a;
 or v is bound in the conjunctive formula f = And(a).
A variable, v, is bound in a conjunction formula, f = And(c_{1}...c_{n}), n ≥ 1, if and only if, either
 v is bound in at least one of the conjuncts;
 or v occurs as the jth argument in a conjunct, c_{i}, that is an externally defined predicate, and the jth position in a binding pattern that is associated with c_{i} is u, and all the arguments that occur, in c_{i}, in positions with value b in the same binding pattern are bound in f' = And(c_{1}...c_{i1} c_{i+1}...c_{n});
 or v occurs in a conjunct, c_{i}, that is an equality formula, and v occurs as the term on one side of the equality, and the term on the other side of the equality is bound in f' = And(c_{1}...c_{i1} c_{i+1}...c_{n}).
A variable, v, is bound in a disjunction formula, if and only if v is bound in every disjunct where it occurs;
A variable, v, is bound in an existential formula, Exists v_{1},...,v_{n} (f'), n ≥ 1, if and only if v is bound in f'. ☐
Notice that the variables, v_{1},...,v_{n}, that are existentially quantified in an existential formula f = Exists v_{1},...,v_{n} (f'), are bound in any formula, F, that contains f as a subformula, if and only if they are bound in f, since they do not exist outside of f.
Definition (Variable safeness). (from [RIFCore]) A variable, v, is safe in a condition formula, f, if and only if
 f is an atomic formula and f is not an equality formula in which both terms are variables and v occurs in f;
 or f is a conjunction, , f = And(c_{1}...c_{n}), n ≥ 1, and v is safe in at least one conjunct in f, or v occurs in a conjunct, c_{i}, that is an equality formula in which both terms are variables, and v occurs as the term on one side of the equality, and the variable on the other side of the equality is safe in f' = And(c_{1}...c_{i1} c_{i+1}...c_{n});
 or f is a disjunction, and v is safe in every disjunct;
 or f is an existential formula, f = Exists v_{1},...,v_{n} (f'), n ≥ 1, and v is safe in f' . ☐
Notice that the two definitions, above, are not extended for negation and, followingly, that an universally quantified (rule) variable is never bound or safe in a condition formula as a consequence of occurring in a negative formula.
The definition of rule safeness is replaced by the following one, that extends the one for RIFCore rules.
Definition (RIFPRD rule safeness). A RIFPRD rule, r, is safe if and only if
 r is an unconditional action block, and Var(r) = ∅;
 or r is a conditional action block, If C Then A, and all the variables in Var(A) are safe in C, and all the variables in Var(r) are bound in C;
 or r is a rule with variable declaration, ∀ v_{1}...v_{n} such that p_{1}...p_{m} (r'), n ≥ 1, m ≥ 0, and either
 r' is an unconditional action block, A, and the conditional action block If And(p_{1}...p_{m}) Then A is safe;
 or r' is a conditional action block, If C Then A, and the conditional action block If And(C p_{1}...p_{m}) Then A is safe;
 or r' is a rule with variable declaration, ∀ v'_{1}...v'_{n'} such that p'_{1}...p'_{m'} (r"), n' ≥ 1, m' ≥ 0, and the rule with variable declaration ∀ v_{1}...v_{n} v'_{1}...v'_{n'} such that p_{1}...p_{m} p'_{1}...p'_{m'} (r"), is safe. ☐
Definition (Group safeness). (from [RIFCore]) A group, Group (s_{1}...s_{n}), n ≥ 0, is safe if and only if
 it is empty, that is, n = 0;
 or s_{1} and ... and s_{n} are safe. ☐
4.1.4 Wellformed rules and groups
If f is a rule, Var(f) is the set of the free variables in f.
Definition (Wellformed rule). A rule, r, is a wellformed rule if and only if either
 r is an unconditional wellformed action block, a,
 or r is a conditional action block where the condition formula, c, is a wellformed condition formula, and the action block, a, is a wellformed action block,
 or r is a quantified rule (with or without patterns), Forall V [such that P](r'), and
 each of the patterns, p_{i} ∈ P = {p_{1},...,p_{n}}, n ≥ 0, is a wellformed condition formula,
 and the quantified rule, r', is a wellformed rule. ☐
Definition (Wellformed group). A group is wellformed group if and only if it is safe and it contains only wellformed groups, g_{1}...g_{n}, n ≥ 0, and wellformed rules, r_{1}...r_{m}, m ≥ 0, such that Var(r_{i}) = ∅ for all i, 0 ≤ i ≤ m. ☐
The variables that are universally quantified in a rule are sometimes called rule variables in the remainder of this document, to distinguish them from the action variables and from the existentially quantified variables. The function CVar, that maps a rule to the set of its rule variables is defined as follows:
 if r is a conditional or unconditional action block, CVar(r) = ∅
 if r is a rule with variable declaration, Forall ?v_{1}...?v_{n} (r'), CVar(r) = CVar(r') ∪ {?v_{1}...?v_{n}}.
The set of the wellformed groups contains all the production rule sets that can be meaningfully interchanged using RIFPRD.
4.2 Operational semantics of rules and rule sets
4.2.1 Motivation and example
As mentioned in the Overview, the description of a production rule system as a transition system is used to specify the semantics of production rules and rule sets interchanged using RIFPRD.
The intuition of describing a production rule system as a transition system is that, given a set of production rules RS and a fact base w_{0}, the rules in RS that are satisfied, in some sense, in w_{0} determine an action a_{1}, whose execution results in a new fact base w_{1}; the rules in RS that are satisfied in w_{1} determine an action a_{2} to execute in w_{1}, and so on, until the system reaches a final state and stops. The result is the fact base w_{n} when the system stops.
Example 4.2. The Rif Shop, Inc. is a rifraf retail chain, with brick and mortar shops all over the world and virtual storefronts in many online shops. The Rif Shop, Inc. maintains its customer fidelity management policies in the form of production rule sets. The customer management department uses RIFPRD to publish rule sets to all the shops and licensees so that everyone uses the latest version of the rules, even though several different rule engines are in use (in fact, some of the smallest shops actually run the rules by hand).
Here is a small rule set that governs discounts and customer status updates at checkout time (to keep the example short, this is a subset of the rules described in the running example):
(* ex1:CheckoutRuleset *) Group rif:forwardChaining ( (* ex1:GoldRule *) Group 10 ( Forall ?customer such that (And( ?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status>"Silver"] ) ) (Forall ?shoppingCart such that (?customer[ex1:shoppingCart>?shoppingCart]) (If Exists ?value (And( ?shoppingCart[ex1:value>?value] pred:numericgreaterthanorequal(?value 2000)) Then Do( Modify( ?customer[ex1:status>"Gold"] ) ) ) ) (* ex1:DiscountRule *) Group ( Forall ?customer such that (And( ?customer # ex1:Customer ) ) (If Or (?customer[ex1:status>"Silver"] ?customer[ex1:status>"Gold"] ) Then Do( (?s ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart>?s]) (?v ?s[ex1:value>?v]) Modify( ?s[ex1:value>func:numericmultiply(?v 0.95)] ) ) ) )
To see how the rule set works, consider the case of a shop where the checkout processing of customer John is about to start. The initial state of the fact base can be represented as follows:
w_{0} = {_john#ex1:Customer _john[ex1:status>"Silver"] _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _john[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>2000]}
When instantiated against w_{0}, the first pattern in the "Gold rule", And( ?customer#ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status>"Silver"] ), yields the single matching substitution: {(_john/?customer)}. The second pattern in the same rule also yields a single matching substitution: {(_john/?customer)(_s1/?shoppingCart)}, for which the existential condition is satisfied.
Likewise, the instantiation of the "Discount rule" yields a single matching substitution that satisfies the condition: {(_john/?customer)}. The conflict set is:
{ex1:GoldRule/{(_john/?customer)(_s1/?shoppingCart)}, ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)}}
The instance ex1:GoldRule/{(_john/?customer)(_s1/?shoppingCart)} is selected because of its higher priority. The ground compound action: Modify(_john[ex1:status>"Gold"]), is executed, resulting in a new state of the fact base, represented as follows:
w_{1} = {_john#ex1:Customer _john[ex1:status>"Gold"] _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _john[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>2000]}
In the next cycle, there is no substitution for the rule variable ?customer that matches the pattern to the state of the fact base, and the only matching rule instance is: ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)}, which is selected for execution. The action variables ?s and ?v are bound, based on the state of the fact base, to _s1 and 200, respectively, and the ground compound action, Modify(_s1[ex1:value>1900]), is executed, resulting in a new state of the fact base:
w_{2} = {_john#ex1:Customer _john[ex1:status>"Gold"] _s1#ex1:ShoppingCart _john[ex1:shoppingCart>_s1] _s1[ex1:value>1900]}
In w_{2}, the only matching rule instance is, again: ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)}. However, that same instance has already been selected and the corresponding action has been executed. Nothing has changed in the state of the fact base that would justify that the rule instance be selected gain. The principle of refraction applies, and the rule instance is removed from consideration.
This leaves the conflict set empty, and the system, having detected a final state, stops.
The result of the execution of the system is w_{2}. ☐
4.2.2 Rules normalization
A rule, R, whose condition, rewritten in disjunctive normal form as described in section Safeness, consists of more than one disjunct, is equivalent, logically as well as operationally, to a set (or conjunction) of rules that have, all, the same conclusion as R, and each rule has one of the disjuncts as its condition: the rule R: If C_{1} Or ... Or C_{n} Then A is equivalent to the set of rules {r_{i=0..n} r_{i}: If C_{i} Then A}.
Without loss of generality, and to keep the specification as simple and intuitive as possible, the operational semantics of production rules and rule sets is specified, in the following sections, for rules and rule sets that have been normalized as follows:
 All the rules are rewritten in disjunctive normal form as described in section Safeness;
 Each rule is replaced by a group of rules
 with the same priority as the rule it replaces,
 that contains as many rules as the condition of the original rule in disjunctive normal form contains disjuncts,
 where the condition, in each rule in the group is one of the disjunct in the condition of the original rule,
 and where all the rules in the group have a different condition and the same action part as the original rule.
In the same way, without loss of generality, and to keep the specification as simple and intuitive as possible, the operational semantics of production rules and rule sets is specified, in the following sections, for rules and rule sets where all the compound actions have been replaced by the equivalent sequences of atomic actions.
4.2.3 Definitions and notational conventions
Formally, a production rule system is defined as a labeled terminal transition system (e.g. PLO04), for the purpose of specifying the semantics of a RIFPRD rule or group of rules.
Definition (labeled terminal transition system): A labeled terminal transition system is a structure {C, L, →, T}, where
 C is a set of elements, c, called configurations, or states;
 L is a set of elements, a, called labels, or actions;
 → ⊆ C × L × C is the transition relation, that is: (c, a, c' ) ∈ → iff there is a transition labeled a from the state c to the state c' . In the case of a production rule system: in the state c of the fact base, the execution of action a causes a transition to state the c' of the fact base;
 T ⊆ C is the set of final states, that is, the set of all the states c from which there are no transitions: T = {c ∈ C  ∀ a ∈ L, ∀ c' ∈ C, (c, a, c') ∉ →}. ☐
For many purposes, a representation of the states of the fact base is an appropriate representation of the states of a production rule system seen as a transition system. However, the most widely used conflict resolution strategies require information about the history of the system, in particular with respect to the rule instances that have been selected for execution in previous states. Therefore, each state of the transition system used to represent a production rule system must keep a memory of the previous states and of the rule instances that where selected and that triggered the transition in those states.
Here, a rule instance is defined as the result of the substitution of constants for all the rule variables in a rule.
Let R denote the set of all the rules in the rule language under consideration.
Definition (Rule instance). Given a rule, r ∈ R, and a ground substitution, σ, such that CVar(r) ⊆ Dom(σ), where CVar(r) denotes the set of the rule variables in r, the result, ri = σ(r), of the substitution of the constant σ(?x) for each variable ?x ∈ CVar(r) is a rule instance (or, simply, an instance) of r. ☐
Given a rule instance ri, let rule(ri) identify the rule from which ri is derived by substitution of constants for the rule variables, and let substitution(ri) denote the substitution by which ri is derived from rule(ri).
In the following, two rule instances ri_{1} and ri_{2} of a same rule r will be considered different if and only if substitution(ri_{1}) and substitution(ri_{2}) substitute a different constant for at least one of the rule variables in CVar(r).
A rule instance, ri, is said to match a state of a fact base, w, if its defining substitution, substitution(ri), matches the RIFPRD condition formula that represents the condition of the instantiated rule, rule(ri), to the set of ground atomic formulas that represents the state of facts w.
Let W denote the set of all the possible states of a fact base.
Definition (Matching rule instance). Given a rule instance, ri, and a state of the fact base, w ∈ W, ri is said to match w if and only if one of the following is true:
 rule(ri) is an unconditional action block;
 rule(ri) is a conditional action block: If condition, Then action, and substitution(ri) matches the condition formula condition to the set of ground atomic condition formulas that represents w;
 rule(ri) is a rule with variable declaration: Forall ?v_{1}...?v_{n} (p_{1}...p_{m}) (r'), n ≥ 0, m ≥ 0, and substitution(ri) matches each of the condition formulas p_{i}, 0 ≤ i ≤ m, to the set of ground atomic condition formulas that represents w, and the rule instance ri' matches w, where rule(ri') = r' and substitution(ri') = substitution(ri). ☐
Definition (Action instance). Given a state of the fact base, w ∈ W, given a rule instance, ri, of a rule in a rule set, RS, and given the action block in the action part of the rule rule(ri): Do((v_{1} p_{1})...(v_{n} p_{n}) a_{1}...a_{m}), n ≥ 0, m ≥ 1, where the (v_{1} p_{1}), 0 ≤ i ≤ n, represent the action variable declarations and the a_{j}, 1 ≤ j ≤ m, represent the sequence of atomic actions in the action block; if ri matches w, the substitution σ = substitution(ri) is extended to the action variables v_{1}...v_{n}, n ≥ 0, in the following way:
 if the binding, p_{i}, associated to v_{i}, in the action variable declaration, is the declaration of a new frame object: (v_{i} New()), then σ(v_{i}) = c_{new}, where c_{new} is a constant of type rif:IRI that does not occur in any of the ground atomic formulas in w;
 if v_{i} is assigned the value of a frame's slot by the action variable declaration: (v_{i} o[s>v_{i}]), then σ(v_{i}) is a constant such that the substitution σ matches the frame formula o[s>v_{i}] to w.
The sequence of ground atomic actions that is the result of substituting a constant for each variable in the atomic actions of the action block of the rule instance, ri, according to the extended substitution, is the action instance associated to ri. ☐
Let actions(ri) denote the action instance that is associated to a rule instance ri. By extension, given an ordered set of rule instances, ori, actions(ori) denotes the sequence of ground atomic actions that is the concatenation, preserving the order in ori, of the action instances associated to the rule instances in ori.
Notice that RIFPRD does not specify semantics for the case where there is no matching substitution for the binding frame formula o[s>v_{i}] in an action variable declaration (v_{i} o[s>v_{i}]). Indeed, although the rule might be valid from an interchange viewpoint, applying it in a context where object o has no value for attribute s is applying it outside the domain where it is meaningful, and the specification of the context where an otherwise valid RIFPRD rule is validly applicable is out of the scope of RIFPRD.
The components of the states of a production rule system seen as a transition system can now be defined more precisely. To avoid confusion between the states of the fact base and the states of the transition system, the latter will be called production rule system states.
Definition (Production rule system state). A production rule system state (or, simply, a system state) is either a system cycle state or a system transitional state. Every production rule system state, s, cycle or transitional, is characterized by
 a state of the fact base, facts(s);
 if s is not the current state, an ordered set of rule instances, picked(s), defined as follows:
 if s is a system cycle state, picked(s) is the ordered set of rule instances picked by the conflict resolution strategy, among the set of all the rule instances that matched facts(s);
 if s is a system transitional state, picked(s) is the empty set;
 if s is not the initial state, a previous system state, previous(s), defined as follows: given a system cycle state, s_{c}, and given the sequence of system transitional states, s_{1},...,s_{n}, n ≥ 0, such that the execution of the first ground atomic action in action(picked(s_{c})) transitioned the system from s_{c} to s_{1} and ... and the nth ground atomic action in action(picked(s_{c})) transitioned the system from s_{n1} to s_{n}, then previous(s) = s_{n} if and only if the (n+1)th ground atomic action in action(picked(s_{c})) transitioned the system from s_{n} to s. ☐
In the following, we will write previous(s) = NIL to denote that a system state s is the initial state.
Definition (Conflict set). Given a rule set, RS ⊆ R, and a system state, s, the conflict set determined by RS in s is the set, conflictSet(RS, s) of all the different instances of the rules in RS that match the state of the fact base, facts(s) ∈ W. ☐
The rule instances that are in the conflict set are, sometimes, said to be fireable.
In each nonfinal cycle state, s, of a production rule system, a subset, picked(s), of the rule instances in the conflict set is selected and ordered; their action parts are instantiated, and the resulting sequence of ground atomic actions is executed. This is sometimes called: firing the selected instances.
4.2.4 Operational semantics of a production rule system
All the elements that are required to define a production rule system as a labeled terminal transition system have now been defined.
Definition (RIFPRD Production Rule System). A RIFPRD production rule system is defined as a labeled terminal transition system PRS = {S, A, →_{PRS}, T}, where :
 S is a set of system states, called the system cycle states;
 A is a set of transition labels, where each transition label is a sequence of ground RIFPRD atomic actions;
 The transition relation →_{PRS} ⊆ S × A × S, is defined as follows:
∀ (s, a, s' ) ∈ S × A × S, (s, a, s' ) ∈ →_{PRS} if and only if all of the following hold: (facts(s), a, facts(s')) ∈ →^{*}_{RIFPRD}, where →^{*}_{RIFPRD} denotes the transitive closure of the transition relation →_{RIFPRD} that is determined by the specification of the semantics of the atomic actions supported by RIFPRD;
 a = actions(picked(s));
 T ⊆ S, a set of final system states. ☐
Intuitively, the first condition in the definition of the transition relation →_{PRS} states that a production rule system can transition from one system cycle state to another only if the state of facts in the latter system cycle state can be reached from the state of facts in the former by performing a sequence of ground atomic actions supported by RIFPRD, according to the semantics of the atomic actions.
The second condition states that the allowed paths out of any given system cycle state are determined only by how rule instances are picked for execution, from the conflict set, by the conflict resolution strategy.
Given a rule set RS ⊆ R, the associated conflict resolution strategy, LS, and halting test, H, and an initial state of the fact base, w ∈ W, the input function to a RIFPRD production rule system is defined as:The execution of a rule set, RS, in a state, w, of a fact base, may result in zero, one or more final state of the fact base, w' = facts(s'), depending on the conflict resolution strategy and the set of final system states.
Therefore, the behavior of a RIFPRD production rule system also depends on:
 the conflict resolution strategy, that is, how rule instances are precisely selected for execution from the rule instances that match a given state of the fact base, and
 how the set T of final system states is precisely defined.
4.2.5 Conflict resolution
The process of selecting one or more rule instances from the conflict set for firing is often called: conflict resolution.
In RIFPRD the conflict resolution algorithm (or conflict resolution strategy) that is intended for a set of rules is denoted by a keyword or a set of keywords that is attached to the rule set. In this version of the RIFPRD specification, a single conflict resolution strategy is specified normatively: it is denoted by the keyword rif:forwardChaining (a constant of type rif:IRI), because it accounts for a common conflict resolution strategy used in most forwardchaining production rule systems. That conflict resolution strategy selects a single rule instance for execution.
Future versions of the RIFPRD specification may specify normatively the intended conflict resolution strategies to be attached to additional keywords. In addition, RIFPRD documents may include nonstandard keywords: it is the responsibility of the producers and consumers of such document to agree on the intended conflict resolution strategies that are denoted by such nonstandard keywords. Future or nonstandard conflict resolution strategies may select an ordered set of rule instances for execution, instead of a single one: the functions picked and actions, in the previous section, have been defined to take this case into account.
Conflict resolution strategy: rif:forwardChaining
Most existing production rule systems implement conflict resolution algorithms that are a combination of the following elements (under these or other, idiosyncratic names; and possibly combined with additional, idiosyncratic rules):
 Refraction. The essential idea of refraction is that a given instance of a rule must not be fired more than once as long as the reasons that made it eligible for firing hold. In other terms, if an instance has been fired in a given state of the system, it is no longer eligible for firing as long as it satisfies the states of facts associated to all the subsequent system states (cycle and transitional);
 Priority. The rule instances are ordered by priority of the instantiated rules, and only the rule instances with the highest priority are eligible for firing;
 Recency. the rule instances are ordered by the number of consecutive system states, cycle and transitional, in which they have been in the conflict set, and only the most recently fireable ones are eligible for firing. Note that the recency rule, used alone, results in depthfirst processing.
Many existing production rule systems implement also some kind of fire the most specific rule first strategy, in combination with the above. However, whereas they agree on the definition of refraction and the priority or recency ordering, existing production rule systems vary widely on the precise definition of the specificity ordering. As a consequence, rule instance specificity was not included in the basic conflict resolution strategy that RIFPRD specifies normatively.
The RIFPRD keyword rif:forwardChaining denotes the common conflict resolution strategy that can be summarized as follows: given a conflict set
 Refraction is applied to the conflict set, that is, all the refracted rule instances are removed from further consideration;
 The remaining rule instances are ordered by decreasing priority, and only the rule instances with the highest priority are kept for further consideration;
 The remaining rule instances are ordered by decreasing recency, and only the most recent rule instances are kept for further consideration;
 Any remaining tie is broken is some way, and a single rule instance is kept for firing.
As specified earlier, picked(s) denotes the ordered list of the rule instances that were picked in a system state, s. Under the conflict resolution strategy denoted by rif:forwardChaining, for any given system cycle state, s, the list denoted by picked(s) contains a single rule instance. By definiiton, if s is a system transitional state, picked(s) is the empty set.
Given a system state, s, a rule set, RS, and a rule instance, ri ∈ conflictSet(RS, s), let recency(ri, s) denote the number of system states before s, in which ri has been continuously a matching instance: if s is the current system state, recency(ri, s) provides a measure of the recency of the rule instance ri. recency(ri, s) is specified recursively as follows:
 if previous(s) = NIL, then recency(ri, s) = 1;
 else if ri ∈ conflictSet(RS, previous(s)), then recency(ri, s) = 1 + recency(ri, previous(s));
 else, recency(ri, s) = 1.
In the same way, given a rule instance, ri, and a system state, s, let lastPicked(ri, s) denote the number of system states before s, since ri has been last fired. lastPicked(ri, s) is specified recursively as follows:
 if previous(s) = NIL, then lastPicked(ri, s) = 1;
 else if ri ∈ picked(previous(s)), then lastPicked(ri, s) = 1;
 else, lastPicked(ri, s) = 1 + lastPicked(ri, previous(s)).
Given a rule instance, ri, let priority(ri) denote the priority that is associated to rule(ri), or zero, if no priority is associated to rule(ri). If rule(ri) is inside nested Groups, priority(ri) denotes the priority that is associated with the innermost Group to which a priority is explicitly associated, or zero.
Example 4.3. Consider the following RIFPRD document:
Document ( Prefix( ex2 <http://example.com/2009/prd3#> ) (* ex2:ExampleRuleSet *) Group ( (* ex2:Rule_1 *) Forall ... (* ex2:HighPriorityRules *) Group 10 ( (* ex2:Rule_2 *) Forall ... (* ex2:Rule_3 *) Group 9 (Forall ... ) ) (* ex2:NoPriorityRules *) Group ( (* ex2:Rule_4 *) Forall ... (* ex2:Rule_5 *) Forall ... ) )
No conflict resolution strategy is identified explicitly, so the default strategy rif:forwardChaining is used.
Because the ex2:ExampleRuleSet group does not specify a priority, the default priority 0 is used. Rule 1, not being in any other group, inherits its priority, 0, from the toplevel group.
Rule 2 inherits its priority, 10, from the enclosing group, identified as ex2:HighPriorityRules. Rule 3 specifies its own, lower, priority: 9.
Since neither Rule 4 nor Rule 5 specify a priority, they inherit their priority from the enclosing group ex2:NoPriorityRules, which does not specify one either, and, thus, they inherit 0 from the toplevel group, ex2:ExampleRuleSet. ☐
Given a set of rule instances, cs, the conflict resolution strategy rif:forwardChaining can now be described with the help of four rules, where ri and ri' are rule instances:
 Refraction rule: if ri ∈ cs and lastPicked(ri, s) < recency(ri, s), then cs = cs  ri;
 Priority rule: if ri ∈ cs and ri' ∈ cs and priority(ri) < priority(ri'), then cs = cs  ri;
 Recency rule: if ri ∈ cs and ri' ∈ cs and recency(ri, s) > recency(ri', s), then cs = cs  ri;
 Tiebreak rule: if ri ∈ cs, then cs = {ri}. RIFPRD does not specify the tiebreak rule more precisely: how a single instance is selected from the remaining set is implementation specific.
The refraction rule removes the instances that have been in the conflict set in all the system states at least since they were last fired; the priority rule removes the instances such that there is at least one instance with a higher priority; the recency rule removes the instances such that there is at least one instance that is more recent; and the tiebreak rule keeps one rule from the set.
To select the singleton rule instance, picked(s), to be fired in a system state, s, given a rule set, RS, the conflict resolution strategy denoted by the keyword rif:forwardChaining consists of the following sequence of steps:
 initialize picked(s) with the conflict set, that a rule set RS determines in a system state s: picked(s) = conflictSet(RS, s);
 apply the refraction rule to all the rule instances in picked(s);
 then apply the priority rule to all the remaining instances in picked(s);
 then apply the recency rule to all the remaining instances in picked(s);
 then apply the tiebreak rule to the remaing instance in picked(s);
 return picked(s).
Example 4.4. Consider, from example 4.2, the conflict set that the rule set ex1:CheckoutRuleset determines in the system state, s_{2}, that corresponds to the state w_{2} = facts(s_{2}) of the fact base, and use it to initialize the set of rule instance considered for firing, picked(s_{2}):
conflictSet(ex1:CheckoutRuleset, s_{2}) = { ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)} } = picked(s_{2})
The single rule instance in the conflict set, ri = ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)}, did already belong to the conflict sets in the two previous states, conflictSet(ex1:CheckoutRuleset, s_{1}) and conflictSet(ex1:CheckoutRuleset, s_{0}); so that its recency in s_{2} is: recency(ri, s_{2}) = 3.
On the other hand, that rule instance was fired in system state s_{1}: picked(s_{1}) = (ex1:DiscountRule/{(_john/?customer)}); so that, in s_{2}, it has been last fired one cycle before: lastPicked(ri, s_{2}) = 1.
Therefore, lastPicked(ri, s_{2}) < recency(ri, s_{2}), and ri is removed from picked(s_{2}) by refraction, leaving picked(s_{2}) empty. ☐
4.2.6 Halting test
By default, a system state is final, given a rule set, RS, and a conflict resolution strategy, LS, if there is no rule instance available for firing after application of the conflict resolution strategy.
For the conflict resolution strategy identified by the RIFPRD keyword rif:forwardChaining, a system state, s, is final given a rule set, RS if and only if the remaining conflict set is empty after application of the refraction rule to all the rule instances in conflictSet(RS, s). In particular, all the system states, s, such that conflictSet(RS, s) = ∅ are final.
5 Document and imports
This section specifies the structure of a RIFPRD document and its semantics when it includes import directives.
5.1 Abstract syntax
In addition to the language of conditions, actions, and rules, RIFPRD provides a construct to denote the import of a RIF or nonRIF document. Import enables the modular interchange of RIF documents, and the interchange of combinations of multiple RIF and nonRIF documents.
5.1.1 Import directive
Definition (Import directive). An import directive consists of:
 an IRI, the locator, that identifies and locates the document to be imported, and
 an optional second IRI that identifies the profile of the import. ☐
RIFPRD gives meaning to oneargument import directives only. Such directives can be used to import other RIFPRD and RIFCore documents. Twoargument import directives are provided to enable import of other types of documents, and their semantics is covered by other specifications. For example, the syntax and semantics of the import of RDF and OWL documents, and their combination with a RIF document, is specified in [RIFRDFOWL].
5.1.2 RIFPRD document
Definition (RIFPRD document). A RIFPRD document consists of zero or more import directives, and zero or one group. ☐
Definition (Imported document). A document is said to be directly imported by a RIF document, D, if and only if it is identified by the locator IRI in an import directive in D. A document is said to be imported by a RIF document, D, if it is directly imported by D, or if it is imported, directly or not, by a RIF document that is directly imported by D. ☐
Definition (Document safeness). (from [RIFCore]) A document is safe if and only if it
 it contains a safe group, or no group at all,
 and all the documents that it imports are safe. ☐
5.1.3 Wellformed documents
Definition (Conflict resolution strategy associated with a document). A conflict resolution strategy is associated with a RIFPRD document, D, if and only if
 it is explicitly or implicitly attached to the toplevel group in D, or
 it is explicitly or implicitly attached to the toplevel group in a RIFPRD document that is imported by D. ☐
Definition (Wellformed RIFPRD document). A RIFPRD document, D, is wellformed if and only if it satisfies all the following conditions:
 the locator IRI provided by all the import directives in D, if any, identify wellformed RIFPRD documents,
 D contains a wellformed group or no group at all,
 D has only one associated conflict resolution strategy (that is, all the conflict resolution strategies that can be associated with it are the same), and
 every nonrif:local constant that occurs in D or in one of the documents imported by D, occurs in the same context in D and in all the documents imported by D. ☐
The last condition in the above definition makes the intent behind the rif:local constants clear: occurrences of such constants in different documents can be interpreted differently even if they have the same name. Therefore, each document can choose the names for the rif:local constants freely and without regard to the names of such constants used in the imported documents.
5.2 Operational semantics of RIFPRD documents
The semantics of a wellformed RIFPRD document that contains no import directive is the semantics of the rule set that is represented by the toplevel group in the document, evaluated with the conflict resolution strategy that is associated to the document, and the default halting test, as specified above, in section Halting test.
The semantics of a wellformed RIFPRD document, D, that imports the wellformed RIFPRD documents D_{1}, ..., D_{n}, n ≥ 1, is the semantics of the rule set that is the union of the rule sets represented by the toplevel groups in D and the imported documents, with the rif:local constants renamed to ensure that the same symbol does not occur in two different component rule sets, and evaluated with the conflict resolution strategy that is associated to the document, and the default halting test.
6 Builtin functions, predicates and actions
In addition to externally specified functions and predicates, and in particular, in addition to the functions and predicates builtins defined in [RIFDTB], RIFPRD supports externally specified actions, and defines action builtins.
The syntax and semantics of action builtins are specified like for the other buitins, as described in the section Syntax and Semantics of Builtins in [RIFDTB]. However, their formal semantics is trivial: action builtins behave like predicates that are always true, since action builtins, in RIFPRD, MUST NOT affect the semantics of the rules.
Although they must not affect the semantics of the rules, action builtins may have other side effects.
RIF action builtins are defined in the namespace: http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinaction#. In this document, we will use the prefix: act: to denote the RIF action builtins namespace.
6.1 Builtin actions
6.1.1 act:print

Schema:
(?arg; act:print(?arg))

Domains:
The value space of the single argument is xs:string.

Mapping:
When s belongs to its domain, I_{truth} ο I_{External}( ?arg; act:print(?arg) )(s) = t.
If an argument value is outside of its domain, the truth value of the function is left unspecified.

Side effects:
The value of the argument MUST be printed to an output stream, to be determined by the user implementation.
7 Conformance and interoperability
7.1 Semanticspreserving transformations
RIFPRD conformance is described partially in terms of semanticspreserving transformations.
The intuitive idea is that, for any initial state of facts, the conformant consumer of a conformant RIFPRD document must reach at least one of the final state of facts intended by the conformant producer of the document, and that it must never reach any final state of facts that was not intended by the producer. That is:
 a conformant RIFPRD producer, P, must translate any rule set from its own rule language, L_{P}, into RIFPRD, in such a way that, for any possible initial state of the fact base, the RIFPRD translation of the rule set must never produce, according to the semantics specified in this document, a final state of the fact base that would not be a possible result of the execution of the rule set according to the semantics of L_{P} (where the state of the facts base are meant to be represented in L_{P} or in RIFPRD as appropriate), and
 a conformant RIFPRD consumer, C, must translate any rule set from a RIFPRD document into a rule set in its own language, L_{C}, in such a way that, for any possible initial state of the fact base, the translation in L_{C} of the rule set, must never produce, according to the semantics of L_{C}, a final state of the fact base that would not be a possible result of the execution of the rule set according to the semantics specified in this document (where the state of the facts base are meant to be represented in L_{C} or in RIFPRD as appropriate).
Let Τ be a set of datatypes and symbol spaces that includes the datatypes specified in [RIFDTB] and the symbol spaces rif:iri and rif:local. Suppose also that Ε is a set of external predicates and functions that includes the builtins listed in [RIFDTB] and in the section Builtin actions. We say that a rule r is a RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε} rule if and only if
 r is a wellformed RIFPRD rule,
 all the datatypes and symbol spaces used in r are in Τ, and
 all the externally defined functions and predicates used in r are in Ε.
Suppose, further, that C is a set of conflict resolution strategies that includes the one specified in section Conflict resolution, and that H is a set of halting tests that includes the one specified in section Halting test: we say that a rule set , R, is a RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} rule set if and only if
 R contains only RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε} rules,
 the conflict resolution strategy that is associated to R is in C, and
 the halting test that is associated to R is in H.
Given a RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} rule set, R, an initial state of the fact base, w, a conflict resolution strategy c ∈ C and a halting test h ∈ H, let F_{R,w,c,h} denote the set of all the sets, f, of RIFPRD ground atomic formulas that represent final states of the fact base, w' , according to the operational semantics of a RIFPRD production rule system, that is: f ∈ F_{R,w,c,h} if and only if there is a state, s' , of the system, such that Eval(R, c, h, w) →^{*}_{PRS} s' and w' = facts(s') and f is a representation of w' .
In addition, given a rule language, L, a rule set expressed in L, R_{L}, a conflict resolution strategy, c, a halting test, h, and an initial state of the fact base, w, let F_{L,RL, c, h, w} denote the set of all the formulas in L that represent a final state of the fact base that an L processor can possibly reach.
Definition (Semantics preserving mapping).
 A mapping from a RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H}, R, to a rule set, R_{L}, expressed in a language L, is semanticspreserving if and only if, for any initial state of the fact base, w, conflict resolution strategy, c, and halting test, h, it also maps each L formula in F_{L,RL, c, h, w} onto a set of RIFPRD ground formulas in F_{R,w,c,h};
 A mapping from a rule set, R_{L}, expressed in a language L, to a RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H}, R, is semanticspreserving if an only if, for any initial state of the fact base, w, conflict resolution strategy, c, and halting test, h, it also maps each set of ground RIFPRD atomic formulas in F_{R,w,c,h} onto an L formula in F_{L,RL, c, h, w}. ☐
7.2 Conformance Clauses
Definition (RIFPRD conformance).
 A RIF processor is a conformant RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} consumer iff it implements a semanticspreserving mapping from the set of all safe RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} rule sets to the language L of the processor;
 A RIF processor is a conformant RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} producer iff it implements a semanticspreserving mapping from a subset of the language L of the processor to a set of safe RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} rule sets;
 An admissible document is an XML document that conforms to all the syntactic constraints of RIFPRD, including ones that cannot be checked by an XML Schema validator;
 A conformant RIFPRD consumer is a conformant RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} consumer in which Τ consists only of the symbol spaces and datatypes, Ε consists only of the externally defined functions and predicates, C consists only of the conflict resolution strategies, and H consists only of halting tests that are required by RIFPRD. The required symbol spaces are rif:iri and rif:local, and the datatypes and externally defined terms (builtins) are the ones specified in [RIFDTB] and in the section Builtin actions. The required conflict resolution strategy is the one that is identified as rif:forwardChaining, as specified in section Conflict resolution; and the required halting test is the one specified in section Halting test. A conformant RIFPRD consumer must reject any document containing features it does not support.
 A conformant RIFPRD producer is a conformant RIFPRD_{Τ,Ε,C,H} producer which produces documents that include only the symbol spaces, datatypes, externals, conflict resolution strategies and halting tests that are required by RIFPRD. ☐
In addition, conformant RIFPRD producers and consumers SHOULD preserve annotations.
7.3 Interoperability
[RIFCore] is specified as a specialization of RIFPRD: all valid [RIFCore] documents are valid RIFPRD documents and must be accepted by any conformant RIFPRD consumer.
Conversely, it is desirable that any valid RIFPRD document that uses only abstract syntax that is defined in [RIFCore] be a valid [RIFCore] document as well. For some abstract constructs that are defined in both RIFCore and RIFPRD, RIFPRD defines alternative XML syntax that is not valid RIFCore XML syntax. For example, an action block that contains no action variable declaration and only assert atomic actions can be expressed in RIFPRD using the XML elements Do or And. Only the latter option is valid RIFCore XML syntax.
To maximize interoperability with RIFCore and its nonRIFPRD extensions, a conformant RIFPRD consumer SHOULD produce valid [RIFCore] documents whenever possible. Specifically, a conformant RIFPRD producer SHOULD use only valid [RIFCore] XML syntax to serialize a rule set that satisfies all of the following:
 the conflict resolution strategy is effectively equivalent to the stratagy that RIFPRD identifies by the IRI rif:forwardChaining,
 no condition formula contains a negation, in any rule in the rule set,
 no rule in the rule set has anaction block that contains a action variable declaration, and
 in all the rules in the rule set, the action block contains only assert atomic actions.
When processing a rule set that satisfies all the above conditions, a RIFPRD producer is guaranteed to produce a valid [RIFCore] XML document by applying the following rules recursively:
 Remove redundant information. The behavior role element and all its subelements should be omitted in the RIFPRD XML document;
 Remove nested rule variable declarations. If the rule inside a rule with variable delcaration, r_{1}, is also a rule with variable declaration, r_{2}, all the rule variable delarations and all the patterns that occur in r_{1} should be added to the rule variable declarations and the patterns that occur in r_{2}, and, after the transform, r_{1} should be replaced by r_{2}, in the rule set. If the names of some variables declared in r_{1} are the same as the names of some variables declared in r_{2}, the former names must be changed prior to the transform.;
 Remove patterns. If a pattern occurs in a rule with variable declaration, r_{1}:
 if the rule inside r_{1} is a unconditional action block, r_{2}, r_{2} should be transformed into a conditional action block, where the condition is the pattern, and the pattern should be removed from r_{1},
 if the rule inside r_{1} is a conditional action block, r_{2}, the formula that represents the condition in r_{2} should be replaced by the conjunction of that formula and the formula that represents the pattern, and the pattern should be removed from r_{1};
 Convert action blocks. The action block, in each rule, should be replaced by a conjunction, and, inside the conjunction, each assert action should be replaced by its target atomic formula.
Example 7.1. Consider the following rule, R, derived from the Gold rule, in the running example, to have only assertions in the action part:
R: Forall ?customer such that (And( ?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[status>"Silver"] ) ) (Forall ?shoppingCart such that (?customer[shoppingCart>?shoppingCart]) (If Exists ?value (And( ?shoppingCart[value>?value] pred:numericgreaterthanorequal(?value 2000)) Then Do( Assert(ex1:Foo(?customer)) Assert(ex1:Bar(?shoppingCart)) ) ) )
The serialization of R in the following RIFCore conformant XML form does not impacts its semantics (see example 8.12 for another valid RIFPRD XML serialization, that is not RIFCore conformant):
<Forall> <declare><Var>?customer</Var></declare> <declare><Var>?shoppingCart</Var></declare> <formula> <Implies> <if> <And> <formula> <! first pattern > <And> <formula><Member> ... </Member></formula> <formula><Frame> ... </Frame></formula> </And> </formula> <formula> <! second pattern > <Member> ... </Member> </formula> <formula> <! original existential condition > ... </formula> </And> </if> <then> <And> <formula> <! serialization of ex1:Foo(?customer) > ... </formula> <formula> <! serialization of ex1:Bar(?shoppingCart) > ... </formula> </then> </Implies> </formula> </Forall>
☐
8 XML Syntax
This section specifies the concrete XML syntax of RIFPRD. The concrete syntax is derived from the abstract syntax defined in sections 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1 using simple mappings. The semantics of the concrete syntax is the same as the semantics of the abstract syntax.
8.1 Notational conventions
8.1.1 Namespaces
Throughout this document, the xsd: prefix stands for the XML Schema namespace URI http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#, the rdf: prefix stands for http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22rdfsyntaxns#, and rif: stands for the URI of the RIF namespace, http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#.
Syntax such as xsd:string should be understood as a compact URI [CURIE]  a macro that expands to a concatenation of the character sequence denoted by the prefix xsd and the string string. The compact URI notation is used for brevity only, and xsd:string should be understood, in this document, as an abbreviation for http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string.
8.1.2 BNF pseudoschemas
The XML syntax of RIFPRD is specified for each component as a pseudoschema, as part of the description of the component. The pseudoschemas use BNFstyle conventions for attributes and elements: "?" denotes optionality (i.e. zero or one occurrences), "*" denotes zero or more occurrences, "+" one or more occurrences, "[" and "]" are used to form groups, and "" represents choice. Attributes are conventionally assigned a value which corresponds to their type, as defined in the normative schema. Elements are conventionally assigned a value which is the name of the syntactic class of their content, as defined in the normative schema.
<! sample pseudoschema > <defined_element required_attribute_of_type_string="xs:string" optional_attribute_of_type_int="xs:int"? > <required_element /> <optional_element />? <one_or_more_of_these_elements />+ [ <choice_1 />  <choice_2 /> ]* </defined_element>
8.1.3 Syntactic components
Three kinds of syntactic components are used to specify RIFPRD:
 Abstract classes are defined only by their subclasses: they are not visible in the XML markup and can be thought of as extension points. In this document, abstract constructs will be denoted with alluppercase names;
 Concrete classes have a concrete definition, and they are associated with specific XML markup. In this document, concrete constructs will be denoted with CamelCase names with leading capital letter;
 Properties, or roles, define how two classes relate to each other. They have concrete definitions and are associated with specific XML markup. In this document, properties will be denoted with camelCase names with leading smallcase letter.
8.2 Relative IRIs and XML base
Relative IRIs are allowed in RIFPRD XML syntax, anywhere IRIs are allowed, including constant types, symbol spaces, location, and profile. The attribute xml:base [XMLBase] is used to make them absolute.
8.3 Conditions
This section specifies the XML constructs that are used in RIFPRD to serialize condition formulas.
8.3.1 TERM
The TERM class of constructs is used to serialize terms, be they simple terms, that is, constants and variables; lists; or positional terms, the latter being, per the definition of a wellformed formula, representations of externally defined functions.
As an abstract class, TERM is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ Const  Var  List  External ]
8.3.1.1 Const
In RIF, the Const element is used to serialize a constant.
The Const element has a required type attribute and an optional xml:lang attribute:
 The value of the type attribute is the identifier of the Const symbol space. It must be a rif:iri;
 The xml:lang attribute, as defined by 2.12 Language Identification of XML 1.0 or its successor specifications in the W3C recommendation track, is optionally used to identify the language for the presentation of the Const to the user. It is allowed only in association with constants of the type rdf:plainLiteral. A compliant implementation MUST ignore the xml:lang attribute if the type of the Const is not rdf:plainLiteral.
The content of the Const element is the constant's literal, which can be any Unicode character string.
<Const type=rif:iri [xml:lang=xsd:language]? > Any Unicode string </Const>
Example 8.1.
a. A constant with builtin type xsd:integer and value 2,000:
<Const type="xsd:integer">2000</Const>
b. The Customer class, in the running example, is identified by a constant of type rif:iri, in the namespace http://example.com/2009/prd2#:
<Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#Customer </Const>
☐
8.3.1.2 Var
In RIF, the Var element is used to serialize a variable.
The content of the Var element is the variable's name, serialized as an NCName.
<Var> xsd:NCName </Var>
8.3.1.3 List
In RIF, the List element is used to serialize a list.
The List element contains an optional items element, that contains one or more TERMs (without variables) that serialize the elements of the list. The order of the subelements is significant and MUST be preserved. This is emphasized by the fixed value "yes" of the mandatory attribute ordered in the items element.
<List> <items ordered="yes"> GROUNDTERM+ </items>? </List>
Example 8.2.
 The list of customer status values from example 2.1:
<List> <items ordered="yes"> <Const type="xsd:string> New </Const> <Const type="xsd:string> Bronze </Const> <Const type="xsd:string> Silver </Const> <Const type="xsd:string> Gold </Const> </items> </List>
 The empty list:
<List> </List>
☐
8.3.1.4 External
As a TERM, the External element is used to serialize a positional term. In RIFPRD, a positional term represents always a call to an externally defined function, e.g. a builtin, a userdefined function, a query to an external data source, etc.
The External element contains one content element, which in turn contains one Expr element that contains one op element, followed zero or one args element:
 The External and the content elements ensure compatibility with the RIF Basic Logic Dialect [RIFBLD] that allows nonevaluated (that is, logic) functions to be serialized using an Expr element alone;
 The content of the op element must be a Const. When the External is a TERM, the content of the op element serializes a constant symbol of type rif:iri that must uniquely identify the externallu defined function to be applied to the args TERMs;
 The optional args element contains one or more constructs from the TERM abstract class. The args element is used to serialize the arguments of a positional term. The order of the args subelements is, therefore, significant and MUST be preserved. This is emphasized by the required value "yes" of the attribute ordered.
<External> <content> <Expr> <op> Const </op> <args ordered="yes"> TERM+ </args>? </Expr> </content> </External>
Example 8.3. The example shows one way to serialize, in RIFPRD, the product of a variable named ?value and the xsd:decimal value 0.9, where the operation conforms to the specification of the builtin func:numericmultiply, as specified in [RIFDTB].
RIF builtin functions are associated with the namespace http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinfunction#.
<External> <content> <Expr> <op> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinfunction#numericmultiply </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <Var> ?value </Var> <Const type="xsd:decimal"> 0.9 </Const> </args> </Expr> </content> </External>
☐
8.3.2 ATOMIC
The ATOMIC class is used to serialize atomic formulas: positional atoms, equality, membership and subclass atomic formulas, frame atomic formulas and externally defined atomic formulas.
As an abstract class, ATOMIC is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ Atom  Equal  Member  Subclass  Frame  External ]
8.3.2.1 Atom
In RIF, the Atom element is used to serialize a positional atomic formula.
The Atom element contains one op element, followed by zero or one args element:
 The content of the op element must be a Const. It serializes the predicate symbol (the name of a relation);
 The optional args element contains one or more constructs from the TERM abstract class. The args element is used to serialize the arguments of a positional atomic formula. The order of the arg's subelements is, therefore, significant and MUST be preserved. This is emphasized by the required value "yes" of the attribute ordered.
<Atom> <op> Const </op> <args ordered="yes"> TERM+ </args>? </Atom>
Example 8.4. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of the positional atom ex1:gold(?customer), where the predicate symbol gold is defined in the example namespace http://example.com/2009/prd2#.
<Atom> <op> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#gold </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <Var> ?customer </Var> </args> </Atom>
☐
8.3.2.2 Equal
In RIF, the Equal element is used to serialize equality atomic formulas.
The Equal element must contain one left subelement and one right subelement. The content of the left and right elements must be a construct from the TERM abstract class, that serialize the terms of the equality. The order of the subelements is not significant.
<Equal> <left> TERM </left> <right> TERM </right> </Equal>
8.3.2.3 Member
In RIF, the Member element is used to serialize membership atomic formulas.
The Member element contains two required subelements:
 the instance elements must be a construct from the TERM abstract class that serializes the reference to the object;
 the class element must be a construct from the TERM abstract class that serializes the reference to the class.
<Member> <instance> TERM </instance> <class> TERM </class> </Member>
Example 8.5. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of class membership atom that tests whether a variable named ?customer belongs to a class identified by the name Customer in the namespace http://example.com/2009/prd2#
<Member> <instance> <Var> ?customer </Var> </instance> <class> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#Customer </Const> </class> </Member>
☐
8.3.2.4 Subclass
In RIF, the Subclass element is used to serialize subclass atomic formulas.
The Subclass element contains two required subelements:
 the sub element must be a construct from the TERM abstract class that serializes the reference to the subclass;
 the super elements must be a construct from the TERM abstract class that serializes the reference to the superclass.
<Subclass> <sub> TERM </sub> <super> TERM </super> </Subclass>
8.3.2.5 Frame
In RIF, the Frame element is used to serialize frame atomic formulas.
Accordingly, a Frame element must contain:
 an object element, that contains an element of the TERM abstract class that serializes the reference to the frame's object;
 zero to many slot elements, serializing an attributevalue pair as a pair of elements of the TERM abstract class, the first one that serializes the name of the attribute (or property); the second that serializes the attribute's value. The order of the slot's subelements is significant and MUST be preserved. This is emphasized by the required value "yes" of the required attribute ordered.
<Frame> <object> TERM </object> <slot ordered="yes"> TERM TERM </slot>* </Frame>
Example 8.6. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of an expression that states that the object denoted by the variable ?customer has the value denoted by the string "Gold" for the property identified by the symbol status that is defined in the example namespace http://example.com/2009/prd2#
<Frame> <object> <Var> ?customer </Var> </object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#status </Const> <Const type="xsd:string> Gold </Const> </slot> </Frame>
☐
8.3.2.6 External
In RIFPRD, the External element is also used to serialize an externally defined atomic formula, in addition to serializing externally defined functions.
When it is an ATOMIC (as opposed to a TERM; that is, in particular, when it appears in a place where an ATOMIC is expected, and not a TERM), the External element contains one content element that contains one Atom element. The Atom element serializes the externally defined atom properly said:
The op Const in the Atom element must be a symbol of type rif:iri that must uniquely identify the externally defined predicate to be applied to the args TERMs.
<External> <content> Atom </content> </External>
Example 8.7. The example below shows the RIF XML serialization of an externally defined atomic formula that tests whether the value denoted by the variable named ?value is greater than or equal to the integer value 2000, where the test is intended to behave like the builtin predicate pred:numericgreaterthanorequal as specified in [RIFDTB]:
RIF builtin predicates are associated with the namespace http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinpredicate#.
<External> <content> <Atom> <op> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinpredicate#numericgreaterthanorequal </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <Var> ?value </Var> <Const type="xsd:integer"> 2000 </Const> </args> </Atom> </content> </External>
☐
8.3.3 FORMULA
The FORMULA class is used to serialize condition formulas, that is, atomic formulas, conjunctions, disjunctions, negations and existentials.
As an abstract class, FORMULA is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ ATOMIC  And  Or  INeg  Exists ]
8.3.3.1 ATOMIC
An atomic formula is serialized using a single ATOMIC statement. See specification of ATOMIC, above.
8.3.3.2 And
A conjunction is serialized using the And element.
The And element contains zero or more formula subelements, each containing an element of the FORMULA group, that serializes one of the conjuncts.
<And> <formula> FORMULA </formula>* </And>
8.3.3.3 Or
A disjunction is serialized using the Or element.
The Or element contains zero or more formula subelements, each containing an element of the FORMULA group, that serializes one of the disjuncts.
<Or> <formula> FORMULA </formula>* </Or>
8.3.3.4 INeg
The kind of negation that is used in RIFPRD is serialized using the INeg element.
The Negate element contains exactly one formula subelement. The formula element contains an element of the FORMULA group, that serializes the negated statement.
<INeg> <formula> FORMULA </formula> </INeg>
8.3.3.5 Exists
An existentially quantified formula is serialized using the Exists element.
The Exists element contains:
 one or more declare subelements, each containing one Var element that serializes one of the existentially quantified variables;
 exactly one required formula subelement that contains an element from the FORMULA abstract class, that serializes the formula in the scope of the quantifier.
<Exists> <declare> Var </declare>+ <formula> FORMULA </formula> </Exists>
Example 8.8. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of a condition on the existence of a value greater than or equal to 2.000, in the Gold rule of the running example, as represented in example 4.2.
<Exists> <declare> <Var> ?value </Var> </declare> <formula> <And> <Frame> <object> <Var> ?shoppingCart </Var> </object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#value </Const> <Var> ?value </Var> </slot> </Frame> <External> <content> <Atom> <op> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinpredicate#numericgreaterthanorequal </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <Var> ?value </Var> <Const type="xsd:integer"> 2000 </Const> </args> </Atom> </content> </External> </And> </formula> </Exists>
☐
8.4 Actions
This section specifies the XML syntax that is used to serialize the action part of a rule supported by RIFPRD.
8.4.1 ACTION
The ACTION class of elements is used to serialize the actions: assert, retract, modify and execute.
As an abstract class, ACTION is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ Assert  Retract  Modify  Execute ]
8.4.1.1 Assert
An atomic assertion action is serialized using the Assert element.
The Assert element has one target subelement that contains an Atom, a Frame or a Member element that represents the target of the action.
<Assert> <target> [ Atom  Frame  Member ] </target> </Assert>
8.4.1.2 Retract
The Retract construct is used to serialize retract atomic actions.
The Retract element has one target subelement that contains an Atom, a Frame, a TERM, or a pair of TERM constructs that represent the target of the action. The target element has an optional attribute, ordered, that MUST be present when the element contains two TERM subelements: the order of the subelements is significant and MUST be preserved. This is emphasized by the required value "yes" of the attribute.
<Retract> <target ordered="yes"?> [ Atom  Frame  TERM  TERM TERM ] </target> </Retract>
8.4.1.3 Modify
A compound modification is serialized using the Modify element.
The Modify element has one target subelement that contains one Frame that represents the target of the action.
<Modify> <target> Frame </target> </Modify>
Example 8.9. The example shows the RIF XML representation of the action that updates the status of a customer, in the Gold rule, in the running example, as represented in example 4.2: Modify(?customer[status>"Gold"])
<Modify> <target> <Frame> <object> <Var> ?customer </Var> </object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#status </Const> <Const type="xsd:string"> Gold </Const> </slot> </Frame> </target> </Modify>
The action could be equivalently serialized as the sequence of a Retract and an Assert atomic actions:
<Retract> <target ordered="yes"> <Var> ?customer </Var> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#status </Const> </target> </Retract> <Assert> <target> <Frame> <object> <Var> ?customer </Var> </object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri"> http://example.com/2009/prd2#status </Const> <Const type="xsd:string"> Gold </Const> </slot> </Frame> </target> </Assert>
☐
8.4.1.4 Execute
The execution of an externally defined action is serialized using the Execute element.
The Execute element has one target subelement that contains an Atom, that represents the externally defined action to be executed.
The op Const in the Atom element must be a symbol of type rif:iri that must uniquely identify the externally defined action to be applied to the args TERMs.
<Execute> <target> Atom </target> </Execute>
Example 8.10. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of the message printing action, in the Unknonw status rule, in the running example, using the act:print action builtin.
The namespace for RIFPRD action builtins is http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinaction#.
<Execute> <target> <Atom> <op> <Constant type="rif:iri"> http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinaction#print </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <External> <content> <Expr> <op> <Constant type="rif:iri"> http://www.w3.org/2007/rifbuiltinfunction#concat </Const> </op> <args ordered="yes"> <Const type="xsd:string> New customer: </Const> ?customer </args> </Expr> </content> </External> </args> </Atom> </target> </Execute>
☐
8.4.2 ACTION_BLOCK
The ACTION_BLOCK class of constructs is used to represent the conclusion, or action part, of a production rule serialized using RIFPRD.
If action variables are declared in the action part of a rule, or if some actions are not assertions, the conclusion must be serialized as a full action block, using the Do element. However, simple action blocks that contain only one or more assert actions SHOULD be serialized like the conclusions of logic rules using RIFCore or RIFBLD, that is, as a single asserted Atom or Frame, or as a conjunction of the asserted facts, using the And element.
In the latter case, to conform with the definition of an action block wellformedness, the formulas that serialize the individual conjuncts MUST be atomic Atoms and/or Frames.
As an abstract class, ACTION_BLOCK is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ Do  And  Atom  Frame ]
8.4.2.1 New
The New element is used to serialize the construct used to create a new frame identifer, in an action variable declaration.
The New element is always empty.
<New />
8.4.2.2 Do
An action block is serialized using the Do element.
A Do element contains:
 zero or more actionVar subelements, each of them used to serialize one action variable declaration. Accordingly, an actionVar element must contain a Var subelement, that serializes the declared variable; followed by the serialization of an action variable binding, that assigns an initial value to the declared variable, that is: either a frame or the empty element New;
 one actions subelement that serializes the sequence of actions in the action block, and that contains, accordingly, a sequence of one or more subelements of the ACTION class. The order of the actions is significant, and the order MUST be preserved, as emphasized by the required ordered="yes" attribute.
<Do> <actionVar ordered="yes"> Var [ New  Frame ] </actionVar>* <actions ordered="yes"> ACTION+ </actions> </Do>
Example 8.11. The example shows the RIF XML serialization of an action block that asserts that a customer gets a new $5 voucher.
<Do> <actionVar ordered="yes"> <Var>?voucher</Var> <New /> </actionVar> <actions ordered="yes"> <Assert> <target> <Member> <instance><Var>?voucher</Var></instance> <class> <Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#Voucher</Const> </class> </Member> </target> </Assert> <Assert> <target> <Frame> <object><Var>?voucher</Var></object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#value</Const> <Const type="xsd:integer">5</Const> </slot> </Frame> </target> </Assert> <Assert> <target> <Frame> <object><Var>?customer</Var></object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#voucher</Const> <Var>?voucher</Var> </slot> </Frame> </target> </Assert> </actions> </Do>
☐
8.5 Rules and Groups
This section specifies the XML constructs that are used, in RIRPRD, to serialize rules and groups.
8.5.1 RULE
In RIFPRD, the RULE class of constructs is used to serialize rules, that is, unconditional as well as conditional actions, or rules with bound variables.
As an abstract class, RULE is not associated with specific XML markup in RIFPRD instance documents.
[ Implies  Forall  ACTION_BLOCK ]
8.5.1.1 ACTION_BLOCK
An unconditional action block is serialized, in RIFPRD XML, using the ACTION_BLOCK class of construct.
8.5.1.2 Implies
Conditional actions are serialized, in RIFPRD, using the XML element Implies.
The Implies element contains an if subelement and a then subelement:
 the required if element contains an element from the FORMULA class of constructs, that serializes the condition of the rule;
 the required then element contains one element from the ACTION_BLOCK class of constructs, that serializes its conlusion.
<Implies> <if> FORMULA </if> <then> ACTION_BLOCK </then> </Implies>
8.5.1.3 Forall
The Forall construct is used, in RIFPRD, to represent rules with bound variables.
The Forall element contains:
 one or more declare subelements, each containing one Var element that represents one of the declared rule variables;
 zero or more pattern subelements, each containing one element from the FORMULA group of constructs, that serializes one pattern;
 exactly one formula subelement that serializes the formula in the scope of the variables binding, and that contains an element of the RULE group.
<Forall> <declare> Var </declare>+ <pattern> FORMULA </pattern>* <formula> RULE </formula> </Forall>
Example 8.12. The example shows the rule variables declaration part of the Gold rule, from the running example, as represented in example 4.2.
<Forall> <declare><Var>?customer</Var></declare> <pattern> <And> <formula><Member> ... </Member></formula> <formula><Frame> ... </Frame></formula> </And> </pattern> <formula> <Forall> <declare><Var>?shoppingCart</Var></declare> <pattern><Member> ... </Member></pattern> <formula> <Implies> ... </Implies> </formula> </Forall> </formula> </Forall>
☐
8.5.2 Group
The Group construct is used to serialize a group.
The Group element has zero or one behavior subelement and zero or more sentence subelements:
 the behavior element contains
 zero or one ConflictResolution subelement that contains exactly one IRI. The IRI identifies the conflict resolution strategy that is associated with the Group;
 zero or one Priority subelement that contains exactly one signed integer between 10,000 and 10,000. The integer associates a priority with the Group's sentences;
 a sentence element contains either a Group element or an element of the RULE abstract class of constructs.
<Group> <behavior> <ConflictResolution> xsd:anyURI </ConflictResolution>? <Priority> 10,000 ≤ xsd:int ≤ 10,000 </Priority>? </behavior>? <sentence> [ RULE  Group ] </sentence>* </Group>
8.6 Document and directives
8.6.1 Import
The Import directive is used to serialize the reference to an RDF graph or an OWL ontology to be combined with a RIF document. The Import directive is inherited from [RIFCore]. Its abstract syntax and its semantics are specified in [RIFRDFOWL].
The Import directive contains:
 exactly one location subelement, that contains an IRI, that serializes the location of the RDF or OWL document to be combined with the RIF document;
 zero or one profile subelement, that contains an IRI. The admitted values for that constant and their semantics are listed in the section Profiles of Imports, in [RIFRDFOWL].
<Import> <location> xsd:anyURI </location> <profile> xsd:anyURI </profile>? </Import>
8.6.2 Document
The Document is the root element of any RIFPRD instance document.
The Document contains zero or more directive subelements, each containing an Import directive, and zero or one payload subelement, that must contain a Group element.
<Document> <directive> Import </Import>* <payload> Group </payload>? </Document>
The semantics of a document that imports RDF and/or OWL documents is specified in [RIFRDFOWL] and [RIFBLD]. The semantics of a document that does not import other documents is the semantics of the rule set that is serialised by the Group in the document's payload subelement, if any.
8.7 Constructs carrying no semantics
8.7.1 Annotation
Annotations can be associated with any concrete class element in RIFPRD: those are the elements with a CamelCase tagname starting with an uppercase character:
CLASSELT = [ TERM  ATOMIC  FORMULA  ACTION  ACTION_BLOCK  New  RULE  Group  Document  Import ]
An identifier can be associated to any instance element of the abstract CLASSELT class of constructs, as an optional id subelement that MUST contain a Const of type rif:iri.
Annotations can be included in any instance of a concrete class element using the meta subelement.
The Frame construct is used to serialize annotations: the content of the Frame's object subelement identifies the object to which the annotation is associated:, and the Frame's slots represent the annotation properly said as propertyvalue pairs.
If all the annotations are related to the same object, the meta element can contain a single Frame subelement. If annotations related to several different objects need be serialized, the meta role element can contain an And element with zero or more formula subelements, each containing one Frame element, that serializes the annotations relative to one identified object.
<any concrete element in CLASSELT> <id> Const </id>? <meta> [ Frame  <And> <formula> Frame </formula>* </And> ] </meta>? other CLASSELT content </any concrete element in CLASSELT>
Notice that the content of the meta subelement of an instance of a RIFPRD class element is not necessarily associated to that same instance element: only the content of the object subelement of the Frame that represents the annotations specifies what the annotations are about, not where it is included in the instance RIF document.
It is suggested to use Dublin Core, RDFS, and OWL properties for annotations, along the lines of http://www.w3.org/TR/owlref/#Annotations  specifically owl:versionInfo, rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy, dc:creator, dc:description, dc:date, and foaf:maker.
Example 8.13. The example shows the structure of the document that contains the runnig example rule set, as represented in example 4.2, including annotations such as rule set and rule names.
<Document> <payload> <Group> <id><Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#CheckoutRuleSet</Const></id> <meta> <Frame> <object><Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#CheckoutRuleSet</Const></object> <slot ordered="yes"> <Const type="rif:iri">http://dublincore.org/documents/dcminamespace/#creator</Const> <Const type="xsd:string>W3C RIF WG</Const> </slot> <slot> <Const type="rif:iri">http://dublincore.org/documents/dcminamespace/#description</Const> <Const type="xsd:string">Running example rule set from the RIFPRD specification</Const> </slot> </Frame> </meta> <behavior> ... </behavior> <sentence> <Group> <id><Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#GoldRule</Const></id> <behavior> ... </behavior> <sentence><Forall> ... </Forall></sentence> </Group> </sentence> <sentence> <Group> <id><Const type="rif:iri">http://example.com/2009/prd2#DiscountRule</Const></id> <sentence><Forall> ... </Forall></sentence> </Group> </sentence> </Group> </payload> </Document>
☐
9 Presentation syntax (Informative)
To make it easier to read, a nonnormative, lightweight notation was introduced to complement the mathematical English specification of the abstract syntax and the semantics of RIFPRD. This section specifies a presentation syntax for RIFPRD, that extends that notation. The presentation syntax is not normative. However, it may help implementers by providing a more succinct overview of RIFPRD syntax.
The EBNF for the RIFPRD presentation syntax is given as follows. For convenience of reading we show the entire EBNF in its four parts (rules, conditions, actions, and annotations).
Rule Language:
Document ::= IRIMETA? 'Document' '(' Base? Prefix* Import* Group? ')' Base ::= 'Base' '(' ANGLEBRACKIRI ')' Prefix ::= 'Prefix' '(' Name ANGLEBRACKIRI ')' Import ::= IRIMETA? 'Import' '(' LOCATOR PROFILE? ')' Group ::= IRIMETA? 'Group' Strategy? Priority? '(' (RULE  Group)* ')' Strategy ::= Const Priority ::= Const RULE ::= (IRIMETA? 'Forall' Var+ (' such that ' FORMULA+)? '(' RULE ')')  CLAUSE CLAUSE ::= Implies  ACTION_BLOCK Implies ::= IRIMETA? 'If' FORMULA 'Then' ACTION_BLOCK LOCATOR ::= ANGLEBRACKIRI PROFILE ::= ANGLEBRACKIRI
Action Language:
ACTION ::= IRIMETA? (Assert  Retract  Modify  Execute ) Assert ::= 'Assert' '(' IRIMETA? (Atom  Frame  Member) ')' Retract ::= 'Retract' '(' ( IRIMETA? (Atom  Frame)  TERM  TERM TERM ) ')' Modify ::= 'Modify' '(' IRIMETA? Frame ')' Execute ::= 'Execute' '(' IRIMETA? Atom ')' ACTION_BLOCK ::= IRIMETA? ('Do (' ('(' IRIMETA? Var IRIMETA? (Frame  'New()') ')')* ACTION+ ')'  'And (' ( IRIMETA? (Atom  Frame) )* ')'  Atom  Frame)
Condition Language:
FORMULA ::= IRIMETA? 'And' '(' FORMULA* ')'  IRIMETA? 'Or' '(' FORMULA* ')'  IRIMETA? 'Exists' (IRIMETA? Var)+ '(' FORMULA ')'  ATOMIC  IRIMETA? NEGATEDFORMULA  IRIMETA? Equal  IRIMETA? Member  IRIMETA? Subclass  IRIMETA? 'External' '(' IRIMETA? Atom ')' ATOMIC ::= IRIMETA? (Atom  Frame) Atom ::= UNITERM UNITERM ::= (IRIMETA? Const) '(' (TERM* ')' GROUNDUNITERM ::= (IRIMETA? Const) '(' (GROUNDTERM* ')' NEGATEDFORMULA ::= 'Not' '(' FORMULA ')'  'INeg' '(' FORMULA ')' Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM Member ::= TERM '#' TERM Subclass ::= TERM '##' TERM Frame ::= TERM '[' (TERM '>' TERM)* ']' TERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const  Var  List  'External' '(' Expr ')') GROUNDTERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const  List  'External' '(' GROUNDUNITERM ')') Expr ::= UNITERM List ::= 'List' '(' GROUNDTERM* ')' Const ::= '"' UNICODESTRING '"^^' SYMSPACE  CONSTSHORT Var ::= '?' Name Name ::= NCName SYMSPACE ::= ANGLEBRACKIRI  CURIE
Annotations:
IRIMETA ::= '(*' IRICONST? (Frame  'And' '(' Frame* ')')? '*)'
A NEGATEDFORMULA can be written using either Not or INeg. INeg is short for inflationary negation and is preferred over 'Not' to avoid ambiguity about the semantics of the negation.
The RIFPRD presentation syntax does not commit to any particular vocabulary and permits arbitrary Unicode strings in constant symbols, argument names, and variables. Constant symbols can have this form: "UNICODESTRING"^^SYMSPACE, where SYMSPACE is an ANGLEBRACKIRI or CURIE that represents the identifier of the symbol space of the constant, and UNICODESTRING is a Unicode string from the lexical space of that symbol space. ANGLEBRACKIRI and CURIE are defined in the section Shortcuts for Constants in RIF's Presentation Syntax in [RIFDTB]. Constant symbols can also have several shortcut forms, which are represented by the nonterminal CONSTSHORT. These shortcuts are also defined in the same section of [RIFDTB]. One of them is the CURIE shortcut, which is extensively used in the examples in this document. Names are XML NCNames. Variables are composed of NCName symbols prefixed with a ?sign.
Example 9.1. Here is the transcription, in the RIFPRD presentation syntax, of the complete RIFPRD document corresponding to the running example:
Document( Prefix( ex1 <http://example.com/2009/prd2> ) (* ex1:CheckoutRuleset *) Group ( (* ex1:GoldRule *) Group ( Forall ?customer such that And(?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status > "Silver"]) (Forall ?shoppingCart such that ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart > ?shoppingCart] (If Exists ?value (And(?shoppingCart[ex1:value > ?value] External(pred:numericgreaterthanorequal(?value 2000)))) Then Do(Modify(?customer[ex1:status > "Gold"]))))) (* ex1:DiscountRule *) Group ( Forall ?customer such that ?customer # ex1:Customer (If Or( ?customer[ex1:status > "Silver"] ?customer[ex1:status > "Gold"]) Then Do ((?s ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart > ?s]) (?v ?s[ex1:value > ?v]) Modify(?s [ex1:value > External(func:numericmultiply (?v 0.95))])))) (* ex1:NewCustomerAndWidgetRule *) Group ( Forall ?customer such that And(?customer # ex1:Customer ?customer[ex1:status > "New"] ) (If Exists ?shoppingCart ?item (And(?customer[ex1:shoppingCart > ?shoppingCart] ?shoppingCart[ex1:containsItem > ?item] ?item # ex1:Widget ) ) Then Do( (?s ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart > ?s]) (?val ?s[ex1:value > ?val]) Retract(?customer ex1:voucher) Modify(?s[ex1:value > External(func:numericmultiply(?val 0.90))])))) (* ex1:UnknownStatusRule *) Group ( Forall ?customer such that ?customer # ex1:Customer (If Not(Exists ?status (And(?customer[ex1:status > ?status] External(pred:listcontains(List("New" "Bronze" "Silver" "Gold") ?status)) ))) Then Do( Execute(act:print(External(func:concat("New customer: " ?customer)))) Assert(?customer[ex1:status > "New"])))) ) )
☐
10 Acknowledgements
This document is the product of the Rules Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group (see below) whose members deserve recognition for their time and commitment. The editors extend special thanks to Harold Boley and Changhai Ke for their thorough reviews and insightful discussions; the working group chairs, Chris Welty and Christian de Sainte Marie, for their invaluable technical help and inspirational leadership; and W3C staff contact Sandro Hawke, a constant source of ideas, help, and feedback.
The regular attendees at meetings of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group at the time of the publication were:
Adrian Paschke (Freie Universitaet Berlin),
Axel Polleres (DERI),
Chris Welty (IBM),
Christian de Sainte Marie (IBM),
Dave Reynolds (HP),
Gary Hallmark (ORACLE),
Harold Boley (NRC),
Jos de Bruijn (FUB),
Leora Morgenstern (IBM),
Michael Kifer (Stony Brook),
Mike Dean (BBN),
Sandro Hawke (W3C/MIT), and
Stella Mitchell (IBM).
11 References
11.1 Normative references
 [OMGPRR]
 Production Rule Representation (PRR), OMG specification, version 1.0, 2007.
 [RDFCONCEPTS]
 Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax, Klyne G., Carroll J. (Editors), W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/RECrdfconcepts20040210/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfconcepts/.
 [RDFSCHEMA]
 RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, Brian McBride, Editor, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/RECrdfschema20040210/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfschema/.
 [RFC3066]
 RFC 3066  Tags for the Identification of Languages, H. Alvestrand, IETF, January 2001, at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.
 [RFC3987]
 RFC 3987  Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs), M. Duerst and M. Suignard, IETF, January 2005, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt.
 [RIFBLD]
 RIF Basic Logic Dialect, Boley H. and Kifer M. (Editors), W3C Rule Interchange Format Working Group Draft. Latest Version available at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD.
 [RIFCore]
 RIF Core Dialect, Boley H., Hallmark G., Kifer M., Paschke A., Polleres A., Reynolds, D. (Editors), W3C Rule Interchange Format Working Group Draft. Latest Version available at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core.
 [RIFDTB]
 RIF Datatypes and BuiltIns 1.0, Polleres A., Boley H. and Kifer M. (Editors), W3C Rule Interchange Format Working Group Draft. Latest Version available at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB.
 [RIFFLD]
 RIF Framework for Logic Dialects, Boley H. and Kifer M. (Editors), W3C Rule Interchange Format Working Group Draft. Latest Version available at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD.
 [RIFRDFOWL]
 RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility, de Bruijn J. (Editor), W3C Rule Interchange Format Working Group Draft. Latest Version available at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC.
 [XDM]
 XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM), W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 23 January 2007. This version is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/RECxpathdatamodel20070123/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xpathdatamodel/.
 [XMLBase]
 XML Base (second edition), W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 28 January 2009, http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/RECxmlbase20090128/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/.
 [XMLSCHEMA2]
 XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition, W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 28 October 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/RECxmlschema220041028/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema2/.
 [XPathFunctions]
 XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators, W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 23 January 2007, http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/RECxpathfunctions20070123/. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xpathfunctions/.
11.2 Informational references
 [CIR04]
 Production Systems and Rete Algorithm Formalisation, Cirstea H., Kirchner C., Moossen M., Moreau P.E. Rapport de recherche n° inria00280938  version 1 (2004).
 [CURIE]
 CURIE Syntax 1.0, M. Birbeck, S. McCarron, W3C Candidate Recommendation, 16 January 2009, http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CRcurie20090116. Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/.
 [Enderton01]
 A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Second Edition, H. B. Enderton. Academic Press, 2001.
 [FIT02]
 Fixpoint Semantics for Logic Programming: A Survey, Melvin Fitting, Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. 278, no. 12, pp. 2551. 6 May 2002.
 [HAK07]
 Data Models as Constraint Systems: A Key to the Semantic Web, Hassan AitKaci, Constraint Programming Letters, 1:3388, 2007.
 [KLW95]
 Logical foundations of objectoriented and framebased languages, M. Kifer, G. Lausen, J. Wu. Journal of ACM, July 1995, pp. 741843.
 [Mendelson97]
 Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fourth Edition, E. Mendelson. Chapman & Hall, 1997.
 [PLO04]
 A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics, Gordon D. Plotkin, Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, Volumes 6061, Pages 17139 (July  December 2004).
12 Appendix: Modeltheoretic semantics of RIFPRD condition formulas
This appendix provides an alternative specification of the Semantics of condition formulas, and it is also normative.
This alternative specification is provided for the convenience of the reader, for compatibility with other RIF specifications, such as [RIFDTB] and [RIFRDFOWL], and to make explicit the interoperability with RIF logic dialects, in particular [RIFCore] and [RIFBLD].
12.1 Semantic structures
The key concept in a modeltheoretic semantics of a logic language is the notion of a semantic structure [Enderton01, Mendelson97].
Definition (Semantic structure). A semantic structure, I, is a tuple of the form <TV, DTS, D, D_{ind}, D_{func}, I_{C}, I_{V}, I_{list}, I_{tail}, I_{P}, I_{frame}, I_{sub}, I_{isa}, I_{=}, I_{external}, I_{truth}>. Here D is a nonempty set of elements called the Herbrand domain of I, that is, the set of all ground terms which can be formed by using the elements of Const. D_{ind}, D_{func} are nonempty subsets of D. D_{ind} is used to interpret the elements of Const that are individuals and D_{func} is used to interpret the elements of Const that are function symbols. Const denotes the set of all constant symbols and Var the set of all variable symbols. TV denotes the set of truth values that the semantic structure uses and DTS is a set of identifiers for primitive datatypes (please refer to Section Datatypes in the RIF data types and builtins specification [RIFDTB] for the semantics of datatypes).
As far as the assignment of a standard meaning to formulas in the RIFPRD condition language is concerned, the set TV of truth values consists of just two values, t and f.
The other components of I are total mappings defined as follows:

I_{C} maps Const to D.
This mapping interprets constant symbols. In addition:
 If a constant, c ∈ Const, is an individual then it is required that I_{C}(c) ∈ D_{ind}.
 If c ∈ Const, is a function symbol then it is required that I_{C}(c) ∈ D_{func}.

I_{V} maps Var to D_{ind}.
This mapping interprets variable symbols.
 I_{list} and I_{tail} are used to interpret lists. They are mappings of the following form:
 I_{list} : D_{ind}^{*} → D_{ind}
 I_{tail} : D_{ind}^{+}×D_{ind} → D_{ind}
In addition, these mappings are required to satisfy the following conditions:
 I_{list} is an injective onetoone function.
 I_{list}(D_{ind}) is disjoint from the value spaces of all data types in DTS.
 I_{tail}(a_{1}, ..., a_{k}, I_{list}(a_{k+1}, ..., a_{k+m})) = I_{list}(a_{1}, ..., a_{k}, a_{k+1}, ..., a_{k+m}).
Note that the last condition above restricts I_{tail} only when its last argument is in I_{list}(D_{ind}), the image of I_{list}. If the last argument of I_{tail} is not in I_{list}(D_{ind}), then the list is malformed and there are no restrictions on the value of I_{tail} except that it must be in D_{ind}.

I_{P} maps D to functions D*_{ind} → D (here D*_{ind} is a set of all sequences of any finite length over the domain D_{ind}).
This mapping interprets positional terms atoms.
 I_{frame} maps D_{ind} to total functions of the form SetOfFiniteBags(D_{ind} × D_{ind}) → D.
This mapping interprets frame terms. An argument, d ? D_{ind}, to I_{frame} represents an object and the finite bag {<a1,v1>, ..., <ak,vk>} represents a bag of attributevalue pairs for d. We will see shortly how I_{frame} is used to determine the truth valuation of frame terms.
Bags (multisets) are used here because the order of the attribute/value pairs in a frame is immaterial and pairs may repeat. Such repetitions arise naturally when variables are instantiated with constants. For instance, o[?A>?B ?C>?D] becomes o[a>b a>b] if variables ?A and ?C are instantiated with the symbol a while ?B and ?D are instantiated with b. (We shall see later that o[a>b a>b] is equivalent to o[a>b].)
 I_{sub} gives meaning to the subclass relationship. It is a mapping of the form D_{ind} × D_{ind} → D.
The operator ## is required to be transitive, i.e., c1 ## c2 and c2 ## c3 must imply c1 ## c3. TThis is ensured by a restriction in Section Interpretation of condition formulas;
 I_{isa} gives meaning to class membership. It is a mapping of the form D_{ind} × D_{ind} → D.
The relationships # and ## are required to have the usual property that all members of a subclass are also members of the superclass, i.e., o # cl and cl ## scl must imply o # scl. This is ensured by a restriction in Section Interpretation of condition formulas;
 I_{=} is a mapping of the form D_{ind} × D_{ind} → D.
It gives meaning to the equality operator.

I_{truth} is a mapping of the form D → TV.
It is used to define truth valuation for formulas.

I_{external} is a mapping from the coherent set of schemas for externally defined functions to total functions D* → D. For each external schema σ = (?X_{1} ... ?X_{n}; τ) in the coherent set of external schemas associated with the language, I_{external}(σ) is a function of the form D^{n} → D.
For every external schema, σ, associated with the language, I_{external}(σ) is assumed to be specified externally in some document (hence the name external schema). In particular, if σ is a schema of a RIF builtin predicate, function or action, I_{external}(σ) is specified so that:
 If σ is a schema of a builtin function then I_{external}(σ) must be the function defined in [RIFDTB];
 If σ is a schema of a builtin predicate then I_{truth} ο (I_{external}(σ)) (the composition of I_{truth} and I_{external}(σ), a truthvalued function) must be as specified in [RIFDTB];
 If σ is a schema of a builtin action then I_{truth} ο (I_{external}(σ)) (the composition of I_{truth} and I_{external}(σ), a truthvalued function) must be as specified in the section Builtin actions in this document.
For convenience, we also define the following mapping I from terms to D:
 I(k) = I_{C}(k), if k is a symbol in Const;
 I(?v) = I_{V}(?v), if ?v is a variable in Var;
 For list terms, the mapping is defined as follows:
 I(List( )) = I_{list}(<>). Here <> denotes an empty list of elements of D_{ind}. (Note that the domain of I_{list} is D_{ind}^{*}, so D_{ind}^{0} is an empty list of elements of D_{ind}.)
 I(List(t_{1} ... t_{n})) = I_{list}(I(t_{1}), ..., I(t_{n})), if n>0.
 I(List(t_{1} ... t_{n}  t)) = I_{tail}(I(t_{1}), ..., I(t_{n}), I(t)), if n>0.
 I(p(t_{1} ... t_{n})) = I_{P}(I(p))(I(t_{1}),...,I(t_{n}));
 I(o[a_{1}>v_{1} ... a_{k}>v_{k}]) = I_{frame}(I(o))({<I(a_{1}),I(v_{1})>, ..., <I(a_{n}),I(v_{n})>})
Here {...} denotes a bag of attribute/value pairs.  I(c1##c2) = I_{sub}(I(c1), I(c2));
 I(o#c) = I_{isa}(I(o), I(c));
 I(x=y) = I_{=}(I(x), I(y));
 I(External(t)) = I_{external}(σ)(I(s_{1}), ..., I(s_{n})), if t is an instance of the external schema σ = (?X_{1} ... ?X_{n}; τ) by substitution ?X_{1}/s_{1} ... ?X_{n}/s_{1}.
Note that, by definition, External(t) is wellformed only if t is an instance of an external schema. Furthermore, by the definition of coherent sets of external schemas, t can be an instance of at most one such schema, so I(External(t)) is welldefined.
The effect of datatypes. The set DTS must include the datatypes described in Section Primitive Datatypes of the RIF data types and builtins specification [RIFDTB].
The datatype identifiers in DTS impose the following restrictions. Given dt ∈ DTS, let LS_{dt} denote the lexical space of dt, VS_{dt} denote its value space, and L_{dt}: LS_{dt} → VS_{dt} the lexicaltovaluespace mapping (for the definitions of these concepts, see Section Primitive Datatypes of the RIF data types and builtins specification [RIFDTB]. Then the following must hold:
 VS_{dt} ⊆ D_{ind}; and
 For each constant "lit"^^dt such that lit ∈ LS_{dt}, I_{C}("lit"^^dt) = L_{dt}(lit).
That is, I_{C} must map the constants of a datatype dt in accordance with L_{dt}.
RIFPRD does not impose restrictions on I_{C} for constants in symbol spaces that are not datatypes included in DTS. ☐
12.2 Interpretation of condition formulas
This section defines how a semantic structure, I, determines the truth value TVal_{I}(φ) of a condition formula, φ.
We define a mapping, TVal_{I}, from the set of all condition formulas to TV. Note that the definition implies that TVal_{I}(φ) is defined only if the set DTS of the datatypes of I includes all the datatypes mentioned in φ and I_{external} is defined on all externally defined functions and predicates in φ.
Definition (Truth valuation). Truth valuation for wellformed condition formulas in RIFPRD is determined using the following function, denoted TVal_{I}:
 Positional atomic formulas: TVal_{I}(r(t_{1} ... t_{n})) = I_{truth}(I(r(t_{1} ... t_{n})));
 Equality: TVal_{I}(x = y) = I_{truth}(I(x = y)).
To ensure that equality has precisely the expected properties, it is required that: I_{truth}(I(x = y)) = t if I(x) = I(y) and that I_{truth}(I(x = y)) = f otherwise. This is tantamount to saying that TVal_{I}(x = y) = t iff I(x) = I(y);
 Subclass: TVal_{I}(sc ## cl) = I_{truth}(I(sc ## cl)).
To ensure that the operator ## is transitive, i.e., c1 ## c2 and c2 ## c3 imply c1 ## c3, the following is required: For all c1, c2, c3 ∈ D, if TVal_{I}(c1 ## c2) = TVal_{I}(c2 ## c3) = t then TVal_{I}(c1 ## c3) = t;
 Membership: TVal_{I}(o # cl) = I_{truth}(I(o # cl)).
To ensure that all members of a subclass are also members of the superclass, i.e., o # cl and cl ## scl implies o # scl, the following is required: For all o, cl, scl ∈ D, if TVal_{I}(o # cl) = TVal_{I}(cl ## scl) = t then TVal_{I}(o # scl) = t;
 Frame: TVal_{I}(o[a_{1}>v_{1} ... a_{k}>v_{k}]) = I_{truth}(I(o[a_{1}>v_{1} ... a_{k}>v_{k}])).
Since the bag of attribute/value pairs represents the conjunctions of all the pairs, the following is required, if k > 0: TVal_{I}(o[a_{1}>v_{1} ... a_{k}>v_{k}]) = t if and only if TVal_{I}(o[a_{1}>v_{1}]) = ... = TVal_{I}(o[a_{k}>v_{k}]) = t;
 Externally defined atomic formula: TVal_{I}(External(t)) = I_{truth}(I_{external}(σ)(I(s_{1}), ..., I(s_{n}))), if t is an atomic formula that is an instance of the external schema σ = (?X_{1} ... ?X_{n}; τ) by substitution ?X_{1}/s_{1} ... ?X_{n}/s_{1}.
Note that, by definition, External(t) is wellformed only if t is an instance of an external schema. Furthermore, by the definition of coherent sets of external schemas, t can be an instance of at most one such schema, so I(External(t)) is welldefined;  Conjunction: TVal_{I}(And(c_{1} ... c_{n})) = t if and only if TVal_{I}(c_{1}) = ... = TVal_{I}(c_{n}) = t. Otherwise, TVal_{I}(And(c_{1} ... c_{n})) = f.
The empty conjunction is treated as a tautology, so TVal_{I}(And()) = t;  Disjunction: TVal_{I}(Or(c_{1} ... c_{n})) = f if and only if TVal_{I}(c_{1}) = ... = TVal_{I}(c_{n}) = f. Otherwise, TVal_{I}(Or(c_{1} ... c_{n})) = t.
The empty disjunction is treated as a contradiction, so TVal_{I}(Or()) = f;  Negation: TVal_{I}(Not(c)) = f if and only if TVal_{I}(c) = t. Otherwise, TVal_{I}(Not(c)) = t;
 Existence: TVal_{I}(Exists ?v_{1} ... ?v_{n} (φ)) = t if and only if for some I*, described below, TVal_{I*}(φ) = t.
Here I* is a semantic structure of the form <TV, DTS, D, D_{ind}, D_{pred}, I_{C}, I*_{V}, I_{P}, I_{frame}, I_{NP}, I_{sub}, I_{isa}, I_{=}, I_{external}, I_{truth}>, which is exactly like I, except that the mapping I*_{V}, is used instead of I_{V}. I*_{V} is defined to coincide with I_{V} on all variables except, possibly, on ?v_{1},...,?v_{n}. ☐
12.3 Condition satisfaction
We define, now, what it means for a state of the fact base to satisfy a condition formula. The satisfaction of condition formulas in a state of the fact base provides formal underpinning to the operational semantics of rule sets interchanged using RIFPRD.
Definition (Models). A semantic structure I is a model of a condition formula, φ, written as I = φ, iff TVal_{I}(φ) = t. ☐
Definition (Herbrand interpretation). Given a nonempty set of constants, Const, the Herbrand domain is the set of all the ground terms that can be formed using the elements of Const, and the Herbrand base is the set of all the wellformed ground atomic formulas that can be formed with the elements in the Herbrand domain.
A semantic structure, I, is a Herbrand interpretation, if the set of all the ground formulas which are true with respect to I (that is, of which I is a model), is a subset of the corresponding Herbrand base, B_{I}. ☐
In RIFPRD, the semantics of condition formulas is defined with respect to semantic structures where the domain, D is the Herbrand domain that is determined by the set of all the constants, Const; that is, with respect to Herbrand interpretations.
Definition (State of the fact base). To every Herbrand interpretation I, we associate a state of the fact base, w_{I}, that is represented by the subset of the Herbrand base that contains all the ground atomic formulas of which I is a model; or, equivalently, by the conjunction of all these ground atomic formulas. ☐
Definition (Condition satisfaction). A RIFPRD condition formula φ is satisfied in a state of the fact base, w_{I}, if and only if I is a model of φ. ☐
At the syntactic level, the interpretation of the variables by a valuation function I_{V} is realized by a substitution. As a consequence, a ground substitution σ matches a condition formula ψ to a set of ground atomic formulas Φ if and only if σ realizes the valuation function I_{V} of a semantics structure I that is a model of ψ and Φ is a representation of a state of the fact base, w_{I} (as defined above), that is associated to I; that is, if and only if ψ is satisfied in w_{I} (as defined above).
This provides the formal link between the satisfaction of a condition formula, as defined above, and a matching substitution, and, followingly, between the alternative definitions of a state of facts and the satisfaction of a condition, here and in section Semantics of condition formulas.
13 Appendix: XML schema
The RIFPRD XML Schema is specified below as a redefinition and an extension of the RIFCore XML Schema [RIFCore] and is also available at http://www.w3.org/2010/rifschema/prd/.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF8"?> <xs:schema targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#" elementFormDefault="qualified"> <xs:import namespace='http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace' schemaLocation='http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd'/> <! ================================================== > <! Redefine some elements in the Core Conditions > <! Extension of the choice > <! ================================================== > <xs:group name="ATOMIC"> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> <xs:element ref="Member"/> <xs:element ref="Equal"/> <xs:element ref="Subclass"/> <! Subclass is not in RIFCore > <xs:element name="External" type="ExternalFORMULA.type"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:group name="FORMULA"> <xs:choice> <xs:group ref="ATOMIC"/> <xs:element ref="And"/> <xs:element ref="Or"/> <xs:element ref="Exists"/> <xs:element ref="INeg"/> <! INeg is nt in RIFCore > </xs:choice> </xs:group> <! ================================================== > <! Additional elements to the Core Condition schema > <! ================================================== > <xs:element name="Subclass"> <! > <! <Subclass> > <! <sub> TERM </sub> > <! <super> TERM </super> > <! </Subclass> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="sub"> <xs:complexType> <xs:group ref="TERM" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="super"> <xs:complexType> <xs:group ref="TERM" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="INeg"> <! > <! <INeg> > <! <formula> FORMULA </formula> > <! </INeg> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="formula" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <! ============================================ > <! CoreCond.xsd starts here > <! ============================================ > <xs:complexType name="ExternalFORMULA.type"> <! sensitive to FORMULA (Atom) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="content" type="contentFORMULA.type"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="contentFORMULA.type"> <! sensitive to FORMULA (Atom) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="And"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="formula" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Or"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="formula" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Exists"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="declare" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:element ref="formula"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="formula"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="FORMULA"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="declare"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Var"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Atom"> <! Atom ::= UNITERM > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="UNITERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:group name="UNITERM"> <! UNITERM ::= Const '(' (TERM* ')' > <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="op"/> <xs:element name="args" type="argsUNITERM.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:group> <xs:group name="GROUNDUNITERM"> <! sensitive to ground terms GROUNDUNITERM ::= Const '(' (GROUNDTERM* ')' > <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="op"/> <xs:element name="args" type="argsGROUNDUNITERM.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:group> <xs:element name="op"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Const"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="argsUNITERM.type"> <! sensitive to UNITERM (TERM) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="argsGROUNDUNITERM.type"> <! sensitive to GROUNDUNITERM (TERM) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="GROUNDTERM" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="Equal"> <! Equal ::= TERM '=' ( TERM  IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')' ) > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="left"/> <xs:element ref="right"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="left"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="right"> <xs:complexType> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Member"> <! Member ::= TERM '#' TERM > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="instance"/> <xs:element ref="class"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="instance"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="class"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Frame"> <! Frame ::= TERM '[' (TERM '>' TERM)* ']' > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="object"/> <xs:element name="slot" type="slotFrame.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="object"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="slotFrame.type"> <! sensitive to Frame (TERM) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:group name="TERM"> <! TERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const  Var  External  List ) > <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Const"/> <xs:element ref="Var"/> <xs:element name="External" type="ExternalTERM.type"/> <xs:element ref="List"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:group name="GROUNDTERM"> <! GROUNDTERM ::= IRIMETA? (Const  List  'External' '(' 'Expr' '(' GROUNDUNITERM ')' ')') > <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Const"/> <xs:element ref="List"/> <xs:element name="External" type="ExternalGROUNDUNITERM.type"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:element name="List"> <! List ::= 'List' '(' GROUNDTERM* ')' > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="items"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="GROUNDTERM" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="ExternalTERM.type"> <! sensitive to TERM (Expr) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="content" type="contentTERM.type"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="ExternalGROUNDUNITERM.type"> <! sensitive to GROUNDTERM (Expr) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="content" type="contentGROUNDUNITERM.type"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="contentTERM.type"> <! sensitive to TERM (Expr) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Expr"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="contentGROUNDUNITERM.type"> <! sensitive to GROUNDTERM (Expr) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="Expr" type="contentGROUNDEXPR.type"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="contentGROUNDEXPR.type"> <! sensitive to GROUNDEXPR context> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="GROUNDUNITERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="Expr"> <! Expr ::= Const '(' (TERM  IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')')* ')' > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="op"/> <xs:element name="args" type="argsExpr.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="argsExpr.type"> <! sensitive to Expr (TERM) context> <xs:choice minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:choice> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="Const"> <! Const ::= '"' UNICODESTRING '"^^' SYMSPACE  CONSTSHORT > <xs:complexType mixed="true"> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:anyURI" use="required"/> <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Var"> <! Var ::= '?' NCName > <xs:complexType mixed="true"> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:group name="IRIMETA"> <! IRIMETA ::= '(*' IRICONST? (Frame  'And' '(' Frame* ')')? '*)' > <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="id" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="meta" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:group> <xs:element name="id"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="Const" type="IRICONST.type"/> <! type="&rif;iri" > </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="meta"> <xs:complexType> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> <xs:element name="And" type="Andmeta.type"/> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="Andmeta.type"> <! sensitive to meta (Frame) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="formula" type="formulameta.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="formulameta.type"> <! sensitive to meta (Frame) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="IRICONST.type" mixed="true"> <! sensitive to location/id context> <xs:sequence/> <xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:anyURI" use="required" fixed="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri"/> </xs:complexType> <! ============================================ > <! Definition of the actions (not in RIFCore) > <! ============================================ > <xs:element name="New"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:group name="INITIALIZATION"> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="New"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:element name="Do"> <! > <! <Do> > <! <actionVar ordered="yes"> > <! Var > <! INITIALIZATION > <! </actionVar>* > <! <actions ordered="yes"> > <! ACTION+ > <! </actions> > <! </Do> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="actionVar" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Var" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:group ref="INITIALIZATION" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="actions" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="ACTION" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:group name="ACTION"> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Assert"/> <xs:element ref="Retract"/> <xs:element ref="Modify"/> <xs:element ref="Execute"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:element name="Assert"> <! > <! <Assert> > <! <target> [ Atom > <!  Frame > <!  Member ] > <! </target> > <! </Assert> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="target" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:complexType> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> <xs:element ref="Member"/> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Retract"> <! > <! <Retract> > <! <target ordered="yes"?> > <! [ Atom > <!  Frame > <!  TERM > <!  TERM TERM ] > <! </target> > <! </Assert> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="target" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:complexType> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> <xs:group ref="TERM"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:choice> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Modify"> <! > <! <Modify> > <! <target> Frame </target> > <! </Modify> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="target" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Execute"> <! > <! <Execute> > <! <target> Atom </target> > <! </Execute> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element name="target" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <! ================================================== > <! Redefine Group related Core construct > <! ================================================== > <xs:complexType name="Groupcontents"> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="behavior" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <! behavior in not in RIFCore > <xs:element ref="sentence" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <! ================================================== > <! Group related addition > <! ================================================== > <xs:element name="behavior"> <! > <! <behavior> > <! <ConflictResolution> > <! xsd:anyURI > <! <ConflictResolution>? > <! <Priority> > <! 10,000 ≤ xsd:int ≤ 10,000 > <! </Priority>? > <! </behavior> > <! > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="ConflictResolution" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:element name="Priority" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:simpleType> <xs:restriction base="xs:int"> <xs:minInclusive value="10000"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="10000"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <! ================================================== > <! Redefine rule related Core constructs > <! ================================================== > <xs:group name="RULE"> <! RULE ::= (IRIMETA? 'Forall' Var+ (' such that ' FORMULA+)? '(' RULE ')')  CLAUSE > <xs:choice> <xs:element name="Forall" type="Forallpremises"/> <xs:group ref="CLAUSE"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:complexType name="Forallpremises"> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="declare" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:element name="pattern" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="FORMULA"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <! different from formula in And, Or and Exists > <xs:element name="formula"> <xs:complexType> <xs:group ref="RULE"/> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:group name="CLAUSE"> <! CLAUSE ::= Implies  ACTION_BLOCK > <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Implies"/> <xs:group ref="ACTION_BLOCK"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <xs:complexType name="thenpart"> <xs:group ref="ACTION_BLOCK" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:complexType> <! ================================================== > <! Rule related additions > <! ================================================== > <xs:group name="ACTION_BLOCK"> <! ACTION_BLOCK ::= 'Do (' (Var (Frame  'New'))* ACTION+ ')'  'And (' (Atom  Frame)* ')'  Atom  Frame > <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Do"/> <xs:element name="And" type="Andthen.type"/> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> </xs:choice> </xs:group> <! ================================================== > <! CoreRule.xsd starts here > <! ================================================== > <xs:element name="Document"> <! Document ::= IRIMETA? 'Document' '(' Base? Prefix* Import* Group? ')' > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="directive" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:element ref="payload" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="directive"> <! Base and Prefix represented directly in XML > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="Import"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="payload"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="Group" type="Groupcontents"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Import"> <! Import ::= IRIMETA? 'Import' '(' IRICONST PROFILE? ')' > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="location"/> <xs:element ref="profile" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="location" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:element name="profile" type="xs:anyURI"/> <xs:element name="sentence"> <xs:complexType> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="Group" type="Groupcontents"/> <xs:group ref="RULE"/> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="Implies"> <! Implies ::= IRIMETA? ATOMIC ':' FORMULA > <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="IRIMETA" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> <xs:element ref="if"/> <xs:element name="then" type="thenpart"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="if"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:group ref="FORMULA"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:complexType name="Andthen.type"> <! sensitive to then (And) context> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="formula" type="formulathen.type" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="formulathen.type"> <! sensitive to then (And) context> <xs:choice> <xs:element ref="Atom"/> <xs:element ref="Frame"/> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> </xs:schema>
14 Appendix: Change Log (Informative)
This appendix summarizes the main changes to this document since its publication as a Candidate Recommendation.
Changes since the draft of October 1st, 2009:
 Modify is now a compound action;
 The default conflict resolution strategy rif:forwardChaining takes now into account the intermediate states of the fact base after each atomic action;
 The operational semantics of rules and rule sets is now defined with respect to rules that have been normalized to eliminate disjunctive conditions;
 Section xml:base has been added to clarify the use of the attribute xml:base in the RIFPRD/XML syntax.
Changes since the draft of February 12th, 2010:
 Changed the content of the Var element to xsd:NCName, aligning it with RIFBLD; changed the presentation syntax accordingly;
 Simplified the definition of a conformant consummer according to the working group resolution (minutes of March 23, 2010, teleconference);
 Added the missing optional annotation (IRIMETA) to the content of the elements where it was missing, namely: List, Subclass, Assert, Retract, Modify, Execute, Do, New;
 Modified the syntax of List, adding the items role element as a container for the list elements;
 Corrected a typo in the XML Schema: the minimum occurence of a GROUNDTERM is 1 in an argsGROUNDUNITERM.type, not 0.