short version of "warning label" section for OWL Rules document

From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@MIT.EDU)
Date: 10/16/03

  • Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "Fwd: rules features feedback from Cycorp: OWL-Rules extension priorities"
    Note this short version is tweaked a bit from the longer version v4 in a 
    couple ways
    (named classes only   instead of   "strictly-Horn"  ; DLP summarized a 
    little bit differently).
    -- Benjamin
    % very short version of warning label section -- v6
    % for insertion as additional section in the OWL Rules draft
    % 10/16/03
    % by Benjamin Grosof
    % based on consensus from 10/14/03 Joint Committee telecon
    % with edits input from Mike Dean, Ian Horrocks, Peter Patel-Schneider
    6.  Usage Suggestions; Extensibility and Interoperability Cautions
    Users may want to restrict the form or expressiveness of the rules
    they employ, in order to increase interoperability, reusability,
    extensibility, computational scaleability, or ease of implementation.
    A useful restriction in the form of the rules is to limit
    antecedent and consequent classAtoms to be named classes, where the
    classes are defined purely in OWL (in the same document or in external
    OWL documents).  Adhering to this format makes it easier to translate
    rules to or from existing (or future) rule systems, including: 1)
    Prolog; 2) production rules (descended from OPS5); 3)
    event-condition-action rules; and 4) SQL (where views, queries, and
    facts are all rules).  Adhering to this form also maximizes reuse and
    interoperability of the ontology knowledge in the rules with other
    OWL-speaking systems that do not necessarily support OWL Rules.
    Users also may want to restrict the expressiveness of the OWL classes
    and descriptions appearing in rules.  One useful restriction on
    expressivity is <i>Description Logic Programs</i> [Grosof et al 2003]
    which, e.g., prohibits existentially-quantified knowledge in
    consequents.  Suitably-restricted OWL Rules can be straightforwardly
    extended to enable procedural attachments and/or nonmonotonic
    reasoning (negation-as-failure and/or prioritized conflict handling)
    of the kinds supported in CCI rule systems and in RuleML [RuleML]
    which facilitates interoperability between those CCI rule systems.
    Such adherence may thus facilitate combining OWL Rules knowledge with
    knowledge from those other rules languages.  Suitable restrictions can
    also improve the empirical tractability of reasoning with rules.
    A <a href="">longer,
    more detailed version</a> of the above suggestions
    (alias "warning label") is available.
    Additional References:
    [Grosof et al 2003]
             Description Logic Programs:  Combining Logic
             Programs with Description Logic.  Benjamin Grosof,
             Ian Horrocks, Raphael Volz, Stefan Decker.  Proc.
             WWW2003, Budapest, May 2003.
             Rule Markup Language Initiative.
    Prof. Benjamin Grosof
    Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules, 
    XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services
    MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/16/03 EST