Różnice między wybraną wersją a wersją aktualną.
| Both sides previous revision Poprzednia wersja Nowa wersja | Poprzednia wersja | ||
|
pl:miw:2009:miw09_owl_rules_1 [2009/05/22 23:26] miw |
pl:miw:2009:miw09_owl_rules_1 [2019/06/27 15:50] (aktualna) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linia 1: | Linia 1: | ||
| - | ====== Opis ====== | + | |
| - | Wojciech Franczak, email: franczak@student.agh.edu.pl | + | |
| - | ==== OWL_Rules ==== | + | ====== MIW 2009: OWL_Rules ====== |
| + | |||
| + | **Zrealizował:** [[franczak@student.agh.edu.pl|Wojciech Franczak]] | ||
| How decision rules can be represented, encoded in OWL rules in description logic, description logic programs, swrl? | How decision rules can be represented, encoded in OWL rules in description logic, description logic programs, swrl? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| ====== Spotkania ====== | ====== Spotkania ====== | ||
| Linia 191: | Linia 196: | ||
| </owlx:consequent> | </owlx:consequent> | ||
| </owlx:Rule> | </owlx:Rule> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mapping to RDF Graphs: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rules have variables, so treating them as a semantic extension of RDF is very difficult. It is, however, still possible to provide an RDF syntax for rules it is just that the semantics of the resultant RDF graphs will not be an extension of the RDF Semantics. A mapping to RDF/XML is most easily created as an extension to the XSLT transformation for the OWL XML Presentation syntax. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_airport"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_loc"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_name"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_lat"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_lon"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:Rule> | ||
| + | <owlr:antecedent rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | <owlr:classAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:classPredicate rdf:about="&airport-ont;Airport"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_airport" /> | ||
| + | </owlr:classAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:individualPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="#location"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_airport" /> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument2 rdf:about="#_loc" /> | ||
| + | </owlr:individualPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:datavaluedPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="#latitude"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_loc" /> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument2 rdf:about="#_lat" /> | ||
| + | </owlr:datavaluedPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:datavaluedPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="#longitude"/> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_loc" /> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument2 rdf:about="#_lon" /> | ||
| + | </owlr:datavaluedPropertyAtom> | ||
| + | </owlr:antecedent> | ||
| + | <owlr:consequent rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | <owlr:classAtom> | ||
| + | <owlr:classPredicate> | ||
| + | <owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#sameLocation"/> | ||
| + | <owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | <owl:Class rdf:about="↦Location"/> | ||
| + | <owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="↦isLocationOf"/> | ||
| + | <owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | <owl:Class rdf:about="↦Point"/> | ||
| + | <owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="↦isObjectOf"/> | ||
| + | <owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | <owl:Item rdf:resource="#layer"/> | ||
| + | </owl:oneOf> | ||
| + | </owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | </owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | </owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | </owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | </owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | </owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> | ||
| + | </owl:someValuesFrom> | ||
| + | </owl:Restriction> | ||
| + | </owlr:classPredicate> | ||
| + | <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="_airport" /> | ||
| + | </owlr:classAtom> | ||
| + | </owlr:consequent> | ||
| + | </owlr:Rule> | ||
| ==== Summary ==== | ==== Summary ==== | ||
| Linia 208: | Linia 277: | ||
| * rules and ontology axioms can be freely mixed; | * rules and ontology axioms can be freely mixed; | ||
| * the existing XSLT stylesheet can easily be extended to provide a mapping to RDF graphs that extends the OWL RDF/XML exchange syntax. | * the existing XSLT stylesheet can easily be extended to provide a mapping to RDF graphs that extends the OWL RDF/XML exchange syntax. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mapping to RDF Graphs: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Based on http://www.daml.org/2003/10/pi-meeting/OWL-Rules/all.htm | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Rules have variables, so treating them as a semantic extension of RDF is very difficult | ||
| + | * Possible to provide an RDF syntax for rules but the semantics of the resultant RDF graphs will not be an extension of the RDF Semantics | ||
| + | * Mapping to RDF/XML is most easily created as an extension to the XSLT transformation for the OWL XML Presentation syntax | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Usage Suggestions: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 maximises 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 Description Logic Programs 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 prioritised conflict handling) of the kinds supported in CCI rule systems and in 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. | ||
| ===== BIBTEX ===== | ===== BIBTEX ===== | ||
| Linia 231: | Linia 323: | ||
| - | ====== Prezentacja ====== | + | |
| ====== Materiały ====== | ====== Materiały ====== | ||
