|
Folks,
We have presented our recent research on
translating OWL ontologies and SWRL/RuleML rules to a logic programming
environment for efficient runtime reasoning at a number of venues over the past
couple years. If there is interest, perhaps I can present this at a future
Ontolog forum talk.
We are also involved in the current W3C Rule
Interoperability Framework working group, but won't talk about that
specifically, since it it still ongoing, and there are many issues. Perhaps
Chris Welty, the chair of the RIF, can schedule a talk in the future about its
status?
Here's some of our references on our
effort:
·
Samuel, Ken;
Leo Obrst; Suzette Stoutenberg;
Karen Fox; Adrian Johnson; Ken Laskey; Deborah Nichols; and Jason
Peterson. 2007. Applying Prolog to
Semantic Web Ontologies & Rules: Moving Toward Description Logic
Programs. The Journal of the Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
(TPLP), Massimo Marchiori, ed., forthcoming.
·
Obrst, Leo;
Dru McCandless; Suzette
Stoutenburg; Karen Fox; Deborah
Nichols; Mike Prausa; Rick Sward.
2007. Evolving Use of Distributed
Semantics to Achieve Net-centricity. Regarding the ?Intelligence? in
Distributed Intelligent Systems, AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington VA, Nov. 8-11,
2007, forthcoming.
·
Stoutenburg,
Suzette; Leo Obrst; Deborah Nichols; Paul Franklin; Ken Samuel; Michael Prausa.
2007. Ontologies and Rules for Rapid
Enterprise Integration and Event Aggregation. Vocabularies, Ontologies and
Rules for the Enterprise (VORTE 07), Annapolis, MD, Oct. 15-19, 2007.
·
Stoutenburg,
S; L. Obrst; D. McCandless; D. Nichols; P. Franklin; M. Prausa; R.
Sward. 2007. Ontologies for Rapid
Integration of Heterogeneous Data for Command, Control, & Intelligence.
Ontologies for the Intelligence Community Conference, Columbia, MD, Nov. 28-30,
2007, forthcoming.
·
Stoutenburg,
Suzette, Leo Obrst, Deborah Nichols, Ken Samuel, and Paul Franklin. 2006. Applying Semantic Rules to Achieve Dynamic
Service Oriented Architectures.
RuleML 2006: Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web,
co-located with ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, November 10-11, 2006. In: Service-Oriented Computing ? ICSOC
2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume
4294, 2006, pp. 581-590. Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, Also: MITRE Technical Report MTR 06B0000014, March 2006.
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_06/06_0904/index.html.
·
Samuel, Ken; Leo Obrst; Suzette Stoutenberg; Karen Fox; Adrian Johnson; Ken Laskey;
Deborah Nichols; and Jason Peterson. 2006. Applying Prolog to Semantic Web Ontologies
& Rules: Moving Toward Description Logic Programs. ALPSWS: Applications
of Logic Programming in the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, Aug. 16,
2006, International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 112-113. Federated
Logic Conference 2006, Seattle, WA. Poster presentation and extended abstract.
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-196/alpsws2006-poster5.pdf.
·
Stoutenburg,
Suzette; Leo Obrst; Deborah Nichols; Jason Peterson; Adrian Johnson. 2005. Toward a Standard Rule Language for Semantic
Integration of the DoD Enterprise. W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for
Interoperability, 27-28 April 2005, Washington, D.C. MITRE Technical Report:
http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/05_0400/index.html.
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo
Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information
Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery
& Understanding, Command and Control Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S
H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Hi Ed --
Thanks for your overview of the state of play in
"rules".
You wrote...
As I said
earlier, "rules" is just too big an umbrella. Validating data
sets, transforming
data, directing action, performing directed
reasoning,
providing guidance, and capturing and interpreting policy and
regulation are all
applications of "rules" that involve different but
overlapping
technologies. When you know what kind of problem you want
to solve, then you
can talk about the "rules" concepts and activities
that are relevant
to solving that class of problem. That is why the
RuleML effort
resulted in 5 languages. And for the same reason, we
probably won't see
"widely adopted standards", because no single "rules
technology"
addresses more than a small part of the spectrum of "rules
applications".
You have stated very
clearly a problem that has been worrying me (and maybe others) since the early
days of RIF.
Back then I proposed a way of unifying diverse
rules systems on the
web:
www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19
The
basic idea is to get the various commercial and other rule systems talking to
each other at the input-output level, and to map out how to gradually make
their black boxes more scrutable. The proposal also tried to address the
problem of the conceptual complexity and auditability of interacting
rules systems on the Web, by bolting English commentary containing variables
to the input-output messages.
Maybe the proposal is worth
revisiting? What do you and the list folks
think?
Thanks, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki for
Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Adrian
Walker
Reengineering
On 10/18/07, Ed
Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jyoti,
you
wrote:
> Is there a study and/or a general opinion about which of
these 3
> activities is more widely adopted, practical (in terms
of
> applications) etc.?
Apart from propaganda, not that I know
of. The fact is that they are
all essentially "academic"
activities at this point. I don't think
there is any
commercial development of SWRL, and there was no commercial
involvement
in RuleML until the last year or so, and even that is more
"academic
spinoff" and government-sponsored work. Obviously the
W3C
effort (RIF) has the most caché, and it has both academic and
commercial
participation, but it isn't yet stable enough to have
implementations.
SWRL was published as a W3C member submission in 2004,
has not gained
any greater status, and the only implementations I have
heard of were
academic prototypes (someone's thesis). I know
of only a few tools that
speak some dialect of RuleML.
But OWL
and RDF were government-sponsored efforts with almost entirely
academic
participation until they achieved visibility as W3C standards,
and then
the floodgates opened. So "widely adopted" is really a matter
of filling a need and achieving buzzword status, and my money would
be
on RIF, but that it is the least advanced work of the
lot.
There are two other activities I omitted, both recently
published and
available online from the Object Management Group ( www.omg.org):
- the Production Rules
Representation specification is a simple model of
condition/action rules
that has a standard XML representation per OMG
XMI. It was
developed by major commercial rules engine vendors -- ILOG,
Fair-Isaac,
Computer Associates, et al. Their blurb says they intend
to
use a subset of RIF as the official XML exchange form when RIF is
done.
- the Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules specification
is
purportedly about the capture and exchange of rules, but its
formal
basis is foggy. What it seems really to be about is
getting a formal
form in which "what business people said" can be
captured and exchanged.
So it is all about linking the terms
used in rules to formal and
natural language definitions. In
that way, it is much closer to the
Attempto "controlled English" kind of
thing. There was no clear intent
that the formalized
statements should be inputs to any class of
reasoning engine, although at
least two of the participants have some
engine that will be able to do
something meaningful with some subset of it.
The PRR will almost
certainly have implementations by several commercial
rules engine
vendors, so that they can sell diverse decision support,
workflow
management, EAI and software generation applications to the
same major
customers. (That is why they got together to make
the
standard.) As to SBVR, IMO, the "vocabulary" part is more
likely to be
valuable than the "rules" part.
As I said earlier,
"rules" is just too big an umbrella. Validating data
sets,
transforming data, directing action, performing directed
reasoning,
providing guidance, and capturing and interpreting policy and
regulation
are all applications of "rules" that involve different but
overlapping
technologies. When you know what kind of problem you want
to
solve, then you can talk about the "rules" concepts and activities
that
are relevant to solving that class of problem. That is why the
RuleML effort resulted in 5 languages. And for the same
reason, we
probably won't see "widely adopted standards", because no
single "rules
technology" addresses more than a small part of the
spectrum of "rules
applications".
-Ed
--
Edward J.
Barkmeyer Email:
edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute
of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration
Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop
8263 Tel:
+1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD
20899-8263 FAX:
+1 301-975-4694
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any
Government
authority."
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared
Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To
Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|