|
Adrian,
Unfortunately, this is not yet available, since TPLP
has the first copyright. I will make it available, once we
can.
Thanks,
Leo
_____________________________________________
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 Leo -
I look forward to your Ontolog Forum
presentation.
Meanwhile, is the a preprint or internal report available
for the following please?
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.
Thanks, -- Adrian
Internet
Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary
English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Adrian
Walker
Reengineering
On 10/19/07, Obrst, Leo
J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
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
.
·
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 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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|