[RuleML-all] RuleML 0.91 Naf Datalog and Integrity

[David Dossot]

Hi Harold,

I think I get it. My mistake is to only consider the "striped syntax" so I
overlooked the body element in Entails content model:

    ( oid?, (body | Rulebase), (head | Rulebase) )

In my case (Naf Datalog), the Entails head would contain a body element
where I would store the integrity query.

Thanks again for your help,
David


On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I see.
>
> Actually, for storing integrity constraints, only an Entails
> as a whole is Asserted, not any of its children.
>
> For example, in
>
> http://www.ruleml.org/0.91/exa/FOL+/naffolog/constraint.ruleml
>
> the Rulebase
>
>                <Rulebase>
>                    <Neg>
>                      <And>
>                        <Atom>
>                          <Rel>gold</Rel>
>                          <Var>object</Var>
>                        </Atom>
>                        <Atom>
>                          <Rel>rusty</Rel>
>                          <Var>object</Var>
>                        </Atom>
>                      </And>
>                    </Neg>
>                </Rulebase>
>
> in the Entails head can still be treated like a Query
>
>                <Query>
>                    <Naf>
>                      <And>
>                        <Atom>
>                          <Rel>gold</Rel>
>                          <Var>object</Var>
>                        </Atom>
>                        <Atom>
>                          <Rel>rusty</Rel>
>                          <Var>object</Var>
>                        </Atom>
>                      </And>
>                    </Naff>
>                </Query>
>
> over the Entails body for your implementation purpose.
>
> See also the glossary entry for Entails, which links to its XSD module:
>
>        <!--
>                *** Entails ***
>                Well-known in (meta-)logic (earlier called 'Turnstile',
> and 'Demo' in
>                Kowalski/Bowen's object/meta-level-amalgamated logic).
>
>                See http://www.ruleml.org/0.91/glossary/#gloss-Entails
>
>                content model:
>                ( oid?, (body | Rulebase), (head | Rulebase) )
>        -->
>
> Best,
> Harold
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ddossot at gmail.com [mailto:ddossot at gmail.com] On Behalf Of David
> Dossot
> Sent: March 27, 2008 9:17 PM
> To: Boley, Harold
> Cc: ruleml-all at ruleml.org
> Subject: Re: [RuleML-all] RuleML 0.91 Naf Datalog and Integrity
>
>
> Hi Harold,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I am aware that integrity constraints are expressed with
> Entails/Rulebase in 0.91 but I am confused by what would be the right
> approach for writing such an integrity Rulebase in the Naf Datalog
> sub-language.
>
> More precisely: in Naf Datalog, a Rulebase element follows this content
> model: ( oid?, ( formula | Atom | Implies | Equivalent | Forall )* )
>
> What should I use to express the integrity constraint? An Implies
> element? If yes, what would be the Head then, since I am not actually
> willing to assert a new fact. A Query would be more suited there (in 0.9
> the Integrity element was very similar to a Query in disguise).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks again!
> David
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Boley, Harold
> <Harold.Boley at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>        > How would you write the "inconsistency of a watch being both
> gold and
>        rusty"
>        > in RuleML 0.91 Naf Datalog?
>
>        In version 0.91, the "Examples" section was given a structure
>        reflecting RuleML 0.91 sublanguages:
> http://www.ruleml.org/0.91/exa
>        So, some mapping is needed from the flat 0.9 examples.
>
>        In particular, the integrity constraint example
>        http://www.ruleml.org/0.9/exa/constraint.ruleml
>        now is -- in updated form -- at
>        http://www.ruleml.org/0.91/exa/FOL+/naffolog/constraint.ruleml
>
>        Following slides 33-34 of
>        "The RuleML Family of Web Rule Languages"
>        http://www.ruleml.org/talks/RuleML-Family-PPSWR06-talk-up.pdf
>        the 0.9 use of special Protect and Integrity elements was
> replaced
>        in 0.91 with generally usable Entails and Rulebase elements.
>
>        Also, the LP-like Naf was changed to an FOL-like Neg here.
>        You could change that again to Naf for the NxBRE implementation.
>
>        Entails goes beyond FOL -- it is interpreted in the manner
>        of Reiter's epistemic modal entailment.
>
>        Best,
>        Harold
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ruleml.org/pipermail/ruleml-all/attachments/20080328/d4ec5afe/attachment.htm