Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

KR and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: RIF

  • Reference work entry
Book cover Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies

  • 3137 Accesses

Abstract

Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is a suite of W3C standards designed to facilitate rule exchange among different and dissimilar rule engines, especially among Web-enabled engines. Following on the heels of the earlier Semantic Web standards, RDF and OWL, RIF aims to revolutionize the field of Web application development and create infrastructure for truly intelligent Web applications. The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of RIF, especially the syntax and semantics of its logic-based dialects. As an illustration, it is shown how RIF can be used to build a sophisticated distributed application for the procurement of mobile services, which heavily relies on rule-based reasoning. This chapter also discusses the limitations of RIF’s Basic Logic Dialect (RIF-BLD); in particular, where it falls short of the requirements for complex applications, such as above, and shows how RIF’s Framework for Logic Dialects (RIF-FLD) solves these problems by providing a general framework for designing more expressive dialects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 499.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL web ontology language reference, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Duerst, M., Suignard, M.: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt (2005)

  4. W3C: RIF: Rule Interchange Format working group. http://www.w3. org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group (2010)

  5. Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic, Boston (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Clocksin, W., Mellish, C.: Programming in Prolog. Springer, New York (1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.: HiLog: a foundation for higher-order logic programming. J. Log Program. 15(3), 187–230 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. FOAF: The friend of a friend (FOAF) project. http://www.foaf-project.org/

  11. Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernandez, M., Florescu, D., Robie, J., Simeon, J., Ste-fanescu, M.: Xquery 1.0: an xml query language, W3C Technical Report. http://www.w3.org/XML/Query (2004)

  12. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF, W3C Proposed Recommendation (Nov 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP 1988), Seattle, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jess: Jess, the rule language for the Java platform. http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess/ (2008)

  16. JBoss: Drools. http://labs.jboss.com/drools/ (2010)

  17. WebSphere ILOG JRules. http://www-01.ibm.com/ software/integration/businesses-rule-management/ jrules/ (2010)

  18. Bry, F., Eckert, M., Patranjan, P.L.: Reactivity on the web: paradigms and applications of the language XChange. J. Web Eng. 5(1), 3–24 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kozlenkov, A., Penaloza, R., Nigam, V., Royer, L., Dawelbait, G., Schroeder, M.: PROVA: a language for rule-based Java scripting, data and computation integration, and agent programming. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT 2006), Munich. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4254, pp. 899–908. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF basic logic dialect, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/ (June 2010)

  21. de Sainte Marie, C., Paschke, A., Hallmark, G.: RIF production rule dialect. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD/ (2009)

  22. Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF framework for logic dialects, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-fld/ (June 2010)

  23. Kifer, M.: FLORA-2: an object-oriented knowledge base language. The FLORA-2 web site. http://flora.sourceforge.net

  24. Vulcan, Inc.: The SILK project: semantic inferencing on large knowledge. http://silk.semwebcentral.org/ (2010)

  25. Kifer, M.: Rule interchange format: the framework. In: Calvanese, D., Lausen, G. (eds.) Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, Second International Conference (RR 2008), Karlsruhe. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5341, pp 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. de Bruijn, J.: RIF RDF and OWL compatibility, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ (June 2010)

  27. Boley, H., Hallmark, G., Paschke, M.K.A., Polleres, A., Reynolds, D.: RIF core dialect, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/ (June 2010)

  28. Polleres, A., Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF datatypes and built-ins 1.0, W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/ (June 2010)

  29. Paschke, A., Hirtle, D., Ginsberg, A., Patranjan, P.L., McCabe, F.: RIF use cases and requirements, W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/ (Dec 2008)

  30. Mitchell, S., Morgenstern, L., Paschke, A.: RIF test cases, W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-test/ (June 2010)

  31. Kifer, M.: Rules and ontologies in F-Logic. In: Eisinger, N., Maluszynski, J. (eds.) Reasoning Web, First International Summer School, Msida, 25–29 July 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3564, pp. 22–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E., Yergeau, F., Cowan, J.: Extensible markup language (XML) 1.1, 2nd edn, W3C Recommendation (Aug 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fallside, D., Walmsley, P.: XML schema part 0: primer second edition. Technical report, WWW Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/ (Oct 2004)

  34. Clark, K.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 292–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lloyd, J.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1987)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Biron, P.V., Malhotra, A.: XML schema part 2: datatypes second edition, W3C Recommendation (Oct 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yang, G., Kifer, M., Zhao, C.: FLORA-2: A rule-based knowledge representation and inference infrastructure for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE 2003), Catania. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2888, pp. 671–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Plaisted, D.: Equational reasoning and term rewriting systems. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 1, pp. 273–364. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Voronkov, A.: Theorem proving and Vampire. The Vampire web site. http://www.voronkov.com/vampire.cgi (2010)

  41. Frohn, J., Himmeröder, R., Lausen, G., May, W., Schlepphorst, C.: Managing semistructured data with FLORID: a deductive object-oriented perspective. Inform. Syst. 23(8), 589–613 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member Submission (May 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax, W3C Working Draft (Apr 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Beckett, D.: RDF/XML syntax specification (revised), W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hayes, P.: RDF semantics, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Cuenca-Grau, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language direct semantics, W3C Working Draft (Apr 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schneider, M.: OWL 2 web ontology language rdf-based semantics, W3C Working Draft (Apr 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ontoprise, GmbH: Ontobroker. http://www.ontoprise.com/

  50. Sagonas, K., Swift, T., Warren, D.S., Freire, J., Rao, P., Cui, B., Johnson, E., de Castro, L., Marques, R.F., Dawson, S., Kifer, M.: The XSB system version 3.2: programmer’s manual (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and logic programming live together happily ever after? In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), Athens, GA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4273, pp. 501–514. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wan, H., Grosof, B., Kifer, M., Fodor, P., Liang, S.: Logic programming with defaults and argumentation theories. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2009), Pasadena (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Jos de Bruijn for the discussions that helped shape the contents of this chapter. The author is also grateful to the members of the RIF Working Group, especially Harold Boley, for their time and contributions. Much of the material in this chapter is based on the work of that group: RIF Basic Logic Dialect [20], RIF-RDF and OWL Compatibility [26], and RIF-FLD [22]. Further thanks goes to Harold Boley, Paul Fodor, and Hui Wan who have read an early version of this chapter and gave useful suggestions. Last, but not least, thanks goes to the editors who devoted much effort to putting together this handbook and applying finishing touches to its chapters, including this one.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-4400, USA

    Michael Kifer

Authors
  1. Michael Kifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Kifer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

    John Domingue

  2. STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstraße 21a, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Dieter Fensel

  3. Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA

    James A. Hendler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kifer, M. (2011). KR and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: RIF. In: Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Hendler, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92913-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation