Leo I'm very interested (both proposals). Doug On Oct 19, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote: 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. _____________________________________________ Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command and Control CenterVoice: 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)
|