DOCSLIB.ORG

Semantic Web 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semantic Web 5 SemanticWeb - Reasoning Semantic Web GEIST 5 - Reasoning, Logic and Rules Outline Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 GEIST Research Group Predicate Logic and Datalog http://geist.agh.edu.pl Semantic Web Rule Language Description Logic Rules DL-safe rules Tools and Applications DL Reasoners The End AGH University of Science and Technology, POLAND Using slides according to license from: P. Hitzler Knowledge Representation for the Semantic Web course based on P. Hitzler, M. Krötzsch, S. Rudolph Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies Ontology Modeling Languages course at ESSLLI 2009 in Bordeaux. GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 1 / 53 Outline SemanticWeb - Outline Reasoning GEIST Outline Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog 1 Rules for the Semantic Web rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Datalog Semantic Web Rule 2 Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Language Description Logic Rules DL-safe rules 3 Tools and Applications Tools and Applications DL Reasoners 4 The End The End GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 2 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Outline Reasoning GEIST Outline Rules for the 1 Rules for the Semantic Web Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and 2 Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Datalog Semantic Web Rule Predicate Logic and Datalog Language Description Logic Semantic Web Rule Language Rules Description Logic Rules DL-safe rules Tools and DL-safe rules Applications DL Reasoners The End 3 Tools and Applications DL Reasoners 4 The End GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 3 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Reasoning GEIST Outline Why Rules? Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Datalog Semantic Web Rule OWL may not suffice for all applications Language Description Logic There are statements that cannot be expressed in OWL Rules • DL-safe rules (cf. Lecture 4) Tools and Modeling constructs of OWL not always adequate or most Applications • DL Reasoners desirable The End • First-order logic in general may be insufficient (e.g. if non-monotonic negation is desired) → “Rules” as an alternative paradigm for knowledge modeling Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph: Semantic Web Modeling Languages, ESSLLI 2009, Bordeaux semantic-web-book.org 2 GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 4 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Reasoning GEIST Outline What is a Rule? Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog • Logical Rules (predicate logic implications) rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and – “F → G” (equivalent to “¬F v G”) Datalog – Semantic Web Rule Logical extension of a knowledge base (static) Language – Open World Description Logic Rules – Declarative (descriptive) DL-safe rules • Procedural Rules (e.g. production rules) Tools and – “If X then Y else Z” Applications DL Reasoners – Executable machine directive (dynamic) The End – Operational (meaning = effect on execution) • Logic Programming (e.g. Prolog, F-Logic) – “man(x) :- person(X), not woman(X)” – Approximating logical semantics with procedural aspects, built-ins possible – Typically Closed World – “semi-declarative” • Deduction rules of a calculus (e.g. rules for RDF semantics, lecture 1) – Rules not part of the knowledge base, “meta-rules” Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph: Semantic Web Modeling Languages, ESSLLI 2009, Bordeaux semantic-web-book.org 3 GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 5 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Reasoning GEIST Outline Which Rule Language? Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Rule languages are hardly compatible with each other → Predicate Logic and Datalog important to chose adequate rule language Semantic Web Rule Language Description Logic Rules Possible criteria: DL-safe rules Tools and – Clear specification of syntax and semantics? Applications – Support by software tools? DL Reasoners The End – Which expressive features are needed? – Complexity of implementation? Performance? – Compatibility with other formats, e.g. OWL? – Declarative (describing) or operational (programming)? – … Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph: Semantic Web Modeling Languages, ESSLLI 2009, Bordeaux semantic-web-book.org 4 GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 6 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Reasoning GEIST Outline Which Rule Language? Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 • Logical Rules (predicate logic implications) Predicate Logic and – Clearly defined, extensively researched, well understood Datalog Semantic Web Rule – Very well compatible with OWL and RDF Language Description Logic – Not decidable if unrestricted Rules • Procedural Rules (e.g. production rules) DL-safe rules – Many independent approaches, vague definition Tools and Applications – Used like programming languages, relation to RDF and OWL not clear DL Reasoners – Efficient processing possible The End • Logic Programming (e.g. Prolog, F-Logic) – Clearly defined, but many independent approaches – Partly compatible with OWL and RDF – Decidability/complexity depends very much on the chosen approach → In this lecture: predicate logic rules (which are also the basis for logic programming) Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph: Semantic Web Modeling Languages, ESSLLI 2009, Bordeaux semantic-web-book.org 5 GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 7 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Rule Representation Reasoning GEIST Outline Rules for the Semantic Web Combining Datalog Rule Representation for the Semantic Web rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Datalog Semantic Web Rule Language Description Logic Rules DL-safe rules Tools and Syntax Semantics Architecture Applications DL Reasoners The End RIF, RuleML FOL, F-logic hybrid, homogeneous e.g.: SWRL ! OWL+RuleML syntax, FOL semantics, homogeneous GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 8 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Syntax Rule Markup Reasoning GEIST Objective Outline Rules for the rule encoding (markup) Semantic Web interoperability among application Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and data processing, ontology mapping, ad hoc reasoning (RIF) Datalog Semantic Web Rule Language Description Logic Rules Markup Languages DL-safe rules Tools and Applications RuleML Rule Markup Language DL Reasoners RIF Rule Interchange Format The End Features XML-based syntax extensible interoperable with RDF/OWL GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 9 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Semantics Rule Meaning Reasoning GEIST Ideas from various rule systems Outline Logic Programming (LP), Production Rules Systems, Automatic Rules for the Theorem Provers, Bussiness Rules, application-specic rules etc. Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Challenges for rules and ontologies integration Datalog Semantic Web Rule Language Description Logic OWA in ontologies, CWA in LP and Rule-Based Systems Rules DL-safe rules Unique Name Assumption (UNA) in RBS Tools and Applications Monotonic reasoning in ontology-based systems DL Reasoners The End Semantic for rules most popular choices First Order Logic (FOL) OWL ontologies based on Description Logic subset of FOL Frame logic (F-logic) Stable Model Semantics, no xed semantics GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 10 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Hybrid/Homogeneous Architecture Reasoning GEIST Outline Rules for the Hybrid Approach Homogeneous Approach Semantic Web Combining Datalog rules with OWL2 loose integration, semantic a single logical language Predicate Logic and Datalog separation between: Semantic Web Rule no syntactic or semantic Language an ontology component Description Logic distinctions Rules based on a DL variant DL-safe rules a rule component can be interpreted by a Tools and single reasoning engine Applications usually a variant of DL Reasoners Datalog union or intersection of the The End unidirectional or component languages bidirectional communication The union of the entire LP and DL fragments within First Order Logic is undecidable! GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 11 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Semantic Web Rule Languages Zoo Reasoning GEIST 1 Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) Outline expressive, yet undecidable, OWL and Horn rules union Rules for the Semantic Web 2 DL-safe rules Combining Datalog SWRL rules applied to known individuals rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Datalog 3 Description Logic Programs (DLP) Semantic Web Rule Language decidable, limited expressivity, OWL and Horn rules Description Logic Rules intersection DL-safe rules Tools and 4 OWL 2 DL Applications OWL 2 EL simple terminology (TBox) reasoning DL Reasoners OWL 2 RL reasoning about individuals (ABox) The End Not only OWL! 5 Web Rule Language (WRL) supports CWA and UNA, Well Founded/Perfect Model Semantics 6 TRIPLE language Datalog-like rules cast on RDF data model, based on F-logic GEIST (AGH-UST) SemanticWeb - Reasoning 2014/2015 12 / 53 Rules for the Semantic Web SemanticWeb - Semantic Web Rule Languages Zoo Reasoning GEIST 1 Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) Outline expressive, yet undecidable, OWL and Horn rules union Rules for the Semantic Web 2 DL-safe rules Combining Datalog SWRL rules applied to known individuals rules with OWL2 Predicate Logic and Datalog 3 Description Logic Programs (DLP) Semantic Web Rule Language decidable, limited expressivity, OWL and Horn rules
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards Unifying Rules and Policies for Semantic Web Services
    Towards Unifying Rules and Policies for Semantic Web Services Nima Kaviani 1, Dragan Gaševi ć1, Marek Hatala 1, David Clement 2, Gerd Wagner 3 1Simon Fraser University Surrey, Canada 2Visiphor Corporation, Canada 3Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Germany {nkaviani, dgasevic, mhatala}@sfu.ca, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract However, the current proposed standards for describing Semantic Web services (i.e. OWL-S [14], Simplifying the discovery of web services on one hand WSDL-S [1], Web Service Modeling Ontology [7], and protecting them from misuse on the other hand has and Semantic Web Service Language – SWSL [2]) initiated several lines of research in the area of policy- demonstrate that it is important to use a rule language aware semantic web services. However, the diversity of in addition to ontologies. This allows run-time approaches, ontologies and languages chosen for discovery, composition, and orchestration of Semantic defining Semantic Web services and policies has made Web services by defining preconditions or post- the research area cluttered. It is now ambiguous how conditions for all Web service messages exchanged different registries and agents with different policy [13]. For example, OWL-S recommends using OWL languages and Semantic Web service ontologies would ontologies together with different types of rule share their information. In this paper we try to solve languages (SWRL, KIF, or DRS), WSMO uses F- the problem of exchanging information between the Logic, while WSDL-S is fully agnostic about the use of registries by defining an interchange framework to a vocabulary (e.g., UML, ODM, OWL) or rule transform business rules and concepts from one language (e.g., OCL, SWRL, RuleML).
    [Show full text]
  • Model Driven Architecture and Classification of Business Rules
    Proceedings of the Federated Conference on ISBN 978-83-60810-51-4 Computer Science and Information Systems pp. 949–952 Model Driven Architecture and classification of business rules modelling languages Bartłomiej Gaweł Iwona Skalna AGH University of Science and Technology AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow in Krakow ul.Gramatyka 10, 30-067 Krakow, Poland ul.Gramatyka 10, 30-067 Krakow, Poland Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract—An organisation’s activity under dynamic changes of II. BUSINESS RULES AND SEMANTICS WEB business processes requires continuous improvement of business practices. This implies the necessity of refining decision making The definition of a business rule, coming from GUIDE process. Business rules [6], [8] enable experts to transfer enter- [11], states that a business rule is "a statement that defines or prise strategy onto the operational level using simple sentences constraints some aspect of the business. It is intended to assert which, in turn, can automate reactions to subsequent events both business structure or to control or influence the behaviour of inside and outside the organisation. The main advantage of the the business." In [10], Ross describes several basic principles business rules is their simplicity and flexibility so they can be easily utilised by different organisations for different purposes. of business rules approach. He believes that a language has In order to represent knowledge in a pseudo-natural language the biggest impact on business rules expressiveness. Therefore, understandable to information systems (business rules engines) in the remaining part of this study business rules description notation and description standards are required.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Technologies IV Rules: Ruleml, Prova
    Arbeitsgruppe Semantic Business Process Management Lectuer 8 – Semantic Technologies IV Rules: RuleML, Prova Prof. Dr. Adrian Paschke Corporate Semantic Web (AG-CSW) Institute for Computer Science, Freie Universitaet Berlin [email protected] http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/groups/ag-csw/ Overview . Overview Semantic Technologies . Ontologies . OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel . W3C Web Ontology Language . Rules . OMG SBVR . OMG PRR . W3C RIF . RuleML . Prova Semantic Computing Technologies 4. Software Agents and Web-based Services . Rule Responder, FIPA, Semantic Web Services, … 3. Rules and Event/Action Logic & Inference . RIF, SBVR, PRR, RuleML, Logic Programming Rule/Inference Engines,… 2. Ontologien . RDFS, OWL Lite|DL|Full, OWL 2, ODM, … 1. Explicit Meta-data and Terminologies . vCard, PICS, Dublin Core, RDF, RDFa, Micro Formats, FOAF, SIOC … RuleML SBVR PRR RuleML RIF OCL ILog Blaze Prova XCML IRL SRL RuleML . Rule Markup and Modeling Initiative (RuleML) (www.ruleml.org) . representatives from academia, industry and government . promotion of the modern and future generations of Web rule technology . RuleML is currently the de facto open language standard for Web Rules . W3C Rule Interchange Format in preparation . Collaborating with W3C (RIF), OMG (PRR, SBVR), OASIS, DARPA and other standards/gov'nt bodies RuleML Enables ... modelling markup UML translation RDF Rule interchange in XML execution ASCII publication archiving RuleML Language Family RuleML Derivation Rules Reaction Integrity Transformation Rules Constraints Rules
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies
    Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies Vandana Kabilan October 2007. A Dissertation submitted to The Royal Institute of Technology in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Technology . The Royal Institute of Technology School of Information and Communication Technology Department of Computer and Systems Sciences IV DSV Report Series No. 07–013 ISBN 978–91–7178–752–1 ISSN 1101–8526 ISRN SU–KTH/DSV/R– –07/13– –SE V All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind; the infinite library of the universe is in our own mind. – Swami Vivekananda. (1863 – 1902) Indian spiritual philosopher. The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. – Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) German-Swiss-U.S. scientist. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of na- ture. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe, and seeing whether they match. – Isaac Asimov. (1920 – 1992) Russian-U.S. science-fiction author. VII Dedicated to the three KAs of my life: Kabilan, Rithika and Kavin. IX Abstract. Globalization has opened new frontiers for business enterprises and human com- munication. There is an information explosion that necessitates huge amounts of informa- tion to be speedily processed and acted upon. Information Systems aim to facilitate human decision-making by retrieving context-sensitive information, making implicit knowledge ex- plicit and to reuse the knowledge that has already been discovered. A possible answer to meet these goals is the use of Ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruleml-Based Ontologies for Specifying Learning Objects
    Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS / IASME Int. Conf. on EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, December 16-18, 2005 (pp18-23) RuleML-based Ontologies for Specifying Learning Objects Yevgen Biletskiy David Hirtle Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Computer Science University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick P.O. Box 4400, 15 Dineen Dr., D41 Head Hall P.O. Box 4400, 540 Windsor St., Gillin Hall E126 Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada Abstract: - An approach to building ontologies that assists in achieving interoperability among semantically heterogeneous learning objects and learners is presented. Current work focuses on building ontologies of learning objects, particularly course outlines. The ontology is implemented using the Rule Markup Language (RuleML), an XML-based standard. A RuleML representation allows the ontology to be flexible, extensible and platform- independent. The ontology can be reused and integrated with other ontologies, and is easily converted to other XML- based languages (such as RDF and OWL) and even incorporated with existing XML-based repositories (such as IEEE LOM and CanLOM) using XSL Transformations. A small implemented example of the application of XSL Transformations to build the RuleML-based ontology is presented as a proof of concept. Key Words: - Distance Education, e-Learning, Knowledge Representation, RuleML, XSLT 1 Introduction 1996): ontology capture, coding ontology using a formal The presented work is related to applications of the language, and integrating existing ontologies. context mediation approach for achieving Following the Skeletal Methodology, we define the interoperability between semantically heterogeneous process of building and integrating ontologies of learning objects and learners.
    [Show full text]
  • A Usable Interchange Format for Rich Syntax Rules Integrating OCL, Ruleml and SWRL
    A Usable Interchange Format for Rich Syntax Rules Integrating OCL, RuleML and SWRL Gerd Wagner Adrian Giurca Sergey Lukichev Institute of Informatics Institute of Informatics Institute of Informatics Brandenburg University of Brandenburg University of Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus Technology at Cottbus Technology at Cottbus 03046 Walther Pauer Str.2, 03046 Walther Pauer Str.2, 03046 Walther Pauer Str.2, Cottbus, Germany Cottbus, Germany Cottbus, Germany [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT on the Web and in other distributed systems. They allow Rules are becoming increasingly important in business mod- deploying, executing, publishing and communicating rules eling and requirements engineering, and as a high level pro- in a network. They may also play the role of a lingua franca gramming paradigm. In the area of rule modeling there for exchanging rules between different systems and tools. In are different developer communities like UML modelers and a narrow sense, a rule markup language is a concrete (XML- ontology architects. The former use rules in business mod- based) rule syntax for the Web. In a broader sense, it should eling and in software development, while the latter use rules have an abstract syntax as a common basis for defining vari- in collaborative Web applications. Each of them is using ous concrete languages serving different purposes. The main different rule languages and tools. Since a business rule is purposes of a rule markup language is to permit reuse, in- the same rule no matter in which language it is formalized, terchange and publication of rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Loosely-Coupled and Event-Messaged Interactions with Reaction Ruleml 1.0 in Rule Responder
    Loosely-Coupled and Event-Messaged Interactions with Reaction RuleML 1.0 in Rule Responder Zhili Zhao1, Kia Teymourian1, Adrian Paschke1, Harold Boley2, Tara Athan3 1 Freie Universit¨atBerlin, Germany fpaschke, zhili, teymouriang AT inf.fu-berlin.de 2 Information and Communications Technologies, National Research Council Canada Fredericton, NB, Canada harold.boley AT nrc.gc.ca 3 Athan Services, W Lafayette, IN, USA taraathan AT gmail.com Abstract. Reaction RuleML is one of the two major subfamilies of RuleML and acts as an interchange format for reactive rules and rule- based event-processing languages. Exemplified with a recent instantia- tion of Rule Responder, a rule-based inference agent middleware, we demonstrate the event messaging features of Reaction RuleML, which supports loosely-coupled interface-based interaction using rule signatures and decoupled communication via event messages. 1 Introduction As one of the two major subfamilies of RuleML1, Reaction RuleML2 presents a general compact rule interchange format for reaction rules, which are used to declaratively specify the reactive and behavioral logic of distributed systems and dynamic (Web-based) environments [17]. RuleML has broad coverage and is designed as an interchange language for the major kinds of (Web) rules. The RuleML family's top-level distinction is Deliberation rules vs. Reaction rules [3]. Deliberation rules permit knowledge derivation and subsume further languages such as Hornlog (hence Datalog), which (syntactically) specialize to condition- less Fact and conclusion-less Query languages (the latter subsuming Integrity Constraint (IC) languages). On the other hand, Reaction rules focus on event- driven (re)actions in distributed and dynamic environments. Reaction RuleML is intended as a common standard for representing reactive rules and rule-based complex event processing (CEP) in a platform independent XML markup language.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY WE NEED an XML STANDARD for REPRESENTING BUSINESS RULES Christian De Sainte Marie – ILOG
    WHY WE NEED AN XML STANDARD FOR REPRESENTING BUSINESS RULES Christian de Sainte Marie – ILOG Introduction We are interested in the topic of communicating policy decisions to other parties, and, more generally, to communicating and sharing business rules and policies. The usual acceptation is that business rules are atomic and highly specific and structured statements that constrain some aspect of a business, control or influence its behaviour. If we replace “business” by “Web service” in the definition, we see that it overlaps broadly with the definition of constraints and capabilities for Web services. This is not surprising, as Web services are meant to be part of business processes, and their capabilities and use are therefore constrained by the process and the service owners’ business policies. Business rules are therefore an important aspect of Web Services. However, they are also the missing link in the protocol stacks: the based on a common standard for exchanging data and data models (XML and XML Schema), the Semantic Web stack defines standards for defining and exchanging the semantic of data, whereas the Web Service stack defines standards for defining and exchanging service models and, to a degree the semantics of the services (WSDL, BPEL4WS, etc) along with the protocol required for acquiring the services (SOAP, WS-I profiles, but also all the protocols related to security etc). But there is no specific stack identified for the standards needed to define and exchange the business logic and policies that specifies the conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Model Transformations to Share Rules Between SWRL and R2ML
    Model Transformations to Share Rules between SWRL and R2ML Milan Milanović1, Dragan Gašević2, Adrian Giurca3, 3 1 Gerd Wagner , and Vladan Devedžić 1 FON-School of Business Administration, University of Belgrade, Serbia [email protected], [email protected] 2 School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University Surrey, Canada [email protected] 3 Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg Technical University at Cottbus, Germany [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Currently, there is no generally adopted standard for a Semantic Web rule language, but there are several important evolving proposals such as Ru- leML, Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL), and REWERSE Rule Markup Language (R2ML). Having that in mind, one may expect that various systems (e.g. Web services) will use different rule languages, and thus introduce prob- lems in sharing rules. In this paper, we show how model-driven engineering techniques can be used to enable sharing rules between SWRL and R2ML. The main benefit of this approach is that the transformations between languages are completely based on the languages’ abstract syntax (i.e., metamodels). The main benefit of this approach is that it keeps the focus on the language concepts rather than on technical issues caused by different concrete syntax. Yet, we also provide transformations that bridge between both languages’ concrete (XML) and abstract (MOF) syntax. 1. Introduction The Semantic Web is based on the use of ontologies that should provide an explicit definition of the domain conceptualization. Employing the rich AI research expe- rience and being driven by practical needs for the use on the Web, the W3C has adopted the Web Ontology Language (OWL) as a standard ontology language [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Translating R2ML Into F-Logic a Tutorial
    Translating R2ML into F-Logic A Tutorial Adrian Giurca, Gerd Wagner Institute of Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus {Giurca, G.Wagner}@tu-cottbus.de July 19, 2006 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 The REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Language, R2ML . 2 1.2 F-Logic . 3 2 The R2ML-to-FLogic Translator 5 2.1 Using Namespaces . 5 2.2 Mapping R2ML Derivation Rules . 5 2.3 Mapping R2ML formulas . 7 2.3.1 Mapping r2ml:qf.Conjunction and r2ml:qf.Disjunction . 7 2.3.2 Mapping Negation . 7 2.4 Mapping R2ML Atoms . 8 2.4.1 Mapping r2ml:GenericAtom . 8 2.4.2 Mapping r2ml:ObjectClassificationAtom . 9 2.4.3 r2ml:DataClassificationAtom . 9 2.4.4 Mapping r2ml:ReferencePropertyAtom and r2ml:AttributionAtom . 10 2.4.5 Mapping r2ml:ObjectDescriptionAtom . 11 2.4.6 Mapping r2ml:AssociationAtom . 12 2.4.7 Mapping r2ml:EqualityAtom and r2ml:InequalityAtom . 12 2.4.8 Mapping r2ml:DatatypePredicateAtom . 13 2.5 Mapping R2ML Terms . 13 2.5.1 r2ml:Object . 14 2.5.2 r2ml:TypedLiteral and r2ml:PlainLiteral . 14 2.5.3 r2ml:Variable, r2ml:ObjectVariable and r2ml:DataVariable . 15 2.5.4 R2ML functional Terms . 15 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The REWERSE I1 Rule Markup Lan- guage, R2ML The history of modeling a general rule markup language that will support not only the power of logic programming concepts, but also the widely used object oriented programming paradigm comes from 2003 (see, for example, [14]). Recently (April 11, 2006), the R2ML [11] rule markup language was launched. The SWRL [2] rule language combines RuleML [12] with OWL [13].
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 7 Extending the Use of Ruleml to Store
    Dynamic web forms development using RuleML. Building a framework using metadata driven rules to control Web forms generation and appearance. Item Type Thesis Authors Albhbah, Atia M. Rights <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by- nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a <a rel="license" href="http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">Creative Commons Licence</a>. Download date 30/09/2021 15:31:28 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/5719 University of Bradford eThesis This thesis is hosted in Bradford Scholars – The University of Bradford Open Access repository. Visit the repository for full metadata or to contact the repository team © University of Bradford. This work is licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence. DYNAMIC WEB FORMS DEVELOPMENT USING RULEML A. M. Albhbah PhD UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD 2013 DYNAMIC WEB FORMS DEVELOPMENT USING RULEML Building a framework using metadata driven rules to control Web Forms generation and appearance Atia Mahmod Albhbah Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computing School of Computing, Informatics and Media University of Bradford 2013 i Abstract Atia M. Albhbah “DYNAMIC WEB FORMS DEVELOPMENT USING RULEML” Keywords: Web Forms, Database Metadata, XML, RuleML, Reaction RuleML. Abstract Web forms development for Web based applications is often expensive, laborious, error-prone, time consuming and requires a lot of effort. Web forms are used by many different people with different backgrounds and a lot of demands.
    [Show full text]
  • International Ruleml Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications (Ruleml-2008)
    Collocated with: 2008 International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML-2008) October 30-31, 2008 ─ Orlando, Florida URL: http://2008.ruleml.org Objectives In recent years rule based technologies have enjoyed remarkable adoption in two areas: (1) Business Rules Processing and (2) Web-Centred Reasoning. The first trend is caused by the software development life cycle, which needs to be accelerated at reduced cost. The second trend is related to the Semantic Web and Service-oriented technologies, which aim to turn the Web into a huge repository of cross-referenced, machine-understandable data and processes. For both trends, rules can be used to extract, derive, transform, and integrate information in a platform-independent manner. While early rule engines and environments were complex, expensive to maintain, and not very user friendly, the current generation of rule technology provides enhanced usability, scalability and performance, and is less costly. A general advantage of using rules is that they are usually represented in a platform independent manner, often using XML. This fits well into today’s distributed, heterogeneous Web-based system environments. Rules represented in standardized Web formats can be discovered, interchanged and invoked at runtime within and across Web systems, and can be interpreted and executed on any platform. Collocated with the 11th International Business Rules Forum, the 2008 International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML-2008) is the second symposium (after last year's highly successful RuleML-2007 - http://2007.ruleml.org/) devoted to work on practical distributed rule technologies and rule-based applications which need language standards for rules operating in the context of, e.g., the Semantic Web, Intelligent Multi-Agent Systems, Event- Driven Architectures and Service-Oriented Computing Applications.
    [Show full text]