Reaction RuleML Examples

["Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>]

Hi Monica, Hi All,

Following up on our discussion in today’s TC telecon about synchronizing the developments and the discussion about requirements and language expressiveness (e.g. using ontologies to define different types of negations, operators; quantification, qualification, metadata etc.), I forward this mail about Reaction RuleML 1.0 with several links to examples.

All the best,

Adrian

________________________________________
From: Adrian Paschke [mailto:adrian.paschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: March 31, 2011 4:29 AM
To: Boley, Harold; 'Tichomir Jabarski'; taraAthan@gmail.com; 'Zhili Zhao'; 'Kia Teymourian'; 'Nick Bassiliades'; 'Davide Sottara'; mproctor@redhat.com
Subject: New Reaction RuleML 1.0 Version
Hi All,

I send this email to all who might be interested in the new core Reaction RuleML 1.0 design and syntax.

The core Reaction RuleML 1.0 layer, which builds on top of the horn logic equality layer of RuleML 1.0, can be found here:

http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/dr.xsd  

The core syntax of reaction rules is described in:

Harold Boley, Adrian Paschke, Omair Shafiq. RuleML 1.0: The Overarching Specification of Web Rules. In Proceedings of RuleML'2010. pp.162~178
and
http://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/talks/RuleML-Overarching-Talk.pdf  

Here are several examples illustrating the expressiveness of this layer:

Simple example illustrating the new general rule construct of Reaction RuleML 1.0
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/SimpleDerivationRule.rrml

Extended example illustrating the use meta information
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/FullDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating if-then-else rules
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/if-then-elseDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating signatures definitions, which are used to define public interfaces for distributed rule bases as e.g. in Rule Responder
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/SignatureDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating explicit quantifications (+ quantifier constraints as e.g. in production rules) 
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/QuantifiedDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating explicit semantic profiles (needed e.g. for semantically safe rule interchange)
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/SemanticProfileDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating polymorphic negation (support for different type of negation)
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/NegationDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating scoped reasoning (as supported by e.g. Prova)
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/ScopedDerivationRule.rrml

Example illustrating guarded constraint reasoning (as supported by e.g. Prova)
http://www.csw.inf.fu-berlin.de/RRML1.0/xsd/examples/GuardedDerivationRule.rrml

In order to address the combinatorial explosion of the evaluation / inference semantics, types of negation, types of qualified quantifiers, event/action/situation operators etc. in the higher layers of Reaction RuleML, a general approach of Reaction RuleML 1.0 is to define generic elements, which point to external definitions (ontologies). 

For the most common ones syntactic short cuts are define, such as 

<Quantifier type="Forall" iri="http://reaction.ruleml.org/ns/quantifier/Forall";> is the same as the syntactic shortcut element <Forall>.

This approach is extensible, e.g. to define specialized quantifiers and semantic profiles for uncertainty reasoning, defeasible reasoning, event processing etc.

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
NEU: FreePhone 3-fach-Flat mit kostenlosem Smartphone!                                  
Jetzt informieren: http://mobile.1und1.de/?ac=OM.PW.PW003K20328T7073a