Phil
Thanks for your email. I work with the Simile team here at MIT...and thought
I would offer my perspective.
1. Your ideas are very valid - "rules" are the next level of abstraction
being developed over OWL. You prolly are familiar with SWRL
(
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/)
2. Specifically what can be done with PiggyBank(PB) and now, are some
elementary reasoning tasks using say a Reasoner like Pellet or Fact. For the
kind of task that you describe, you likely do not need the full power of a
"rules" system (mind you - it might carry a lot of overhead).
3. One of the things I am hoping to do is to build a reasoning system into
PB. This would let people prescribe actions based on certain inferences.
And this might be on bit of a tangent here - I am also building a
text-mining technique that would let Piggybank users "mine" RDF from text
(HTML) into their Piggybanks. I think this would be a step along the way of
boot-strapping the semantic web.
HTH,
Shashi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phil.archer_at_icra.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:38 AM
> To: general_at_simile.mit.edu
> Subject: Piggy Bank and rules
>
> Hi all,
>
> I sent Ryan an e-mail the other day and he suggested I shared
> this with the full list so, after a bit of a delay, here goes.
>
> I wanted to let you know first of all how incredibly useful
> Piggy Bank is being for me in talking to about the virtues of
> the Semantic Web. My organisation, ICRA [1], currently uses
> the old PICS standard to add labels to content that describe
> whether it contains sex, nudity, violence etc.
> Filters, ideally ones built onto browsers, can then allow or
> block access to content based on those labels. The best known
> example of this is Content Advisor in Internet Explorer that
> comes with an old rating system called RSACi. That
> organisation/rating system lead to ICRA. We're now working to
> move labelling from PICS to RDF.
>
> OK, introductory history lesson over.
>
> Our use case involves content providers linking a small
> number of descriptions, what we call content labels, to any
> number of resources. For example, "there is no sex or nudity
> on icra.org". That's more than one URI we're trying to
> describe and to make RDF work, we need a way to encode that.
> Further, we need to be able to say "everything at
> www.example.org/artistic_nudes has description A while
> everything else on the example.org domain has description B."
>
> This has lead to the development of a simple rule set that is
> predicated on matching the URL of a resource for which we
> want a description against a sequence of one or more Perl5
> regular expressions. The first match then leads to a
> description - what we call a content label.
>
> Use cases and test data at [2], schema description at [3].
>
> And so to my question - do you see any wider value in Piggy
> Bank (or other SW helper applications) working with the kind
> of rule set ideas we're now using in our own use case? Let me
> expand a little further.
>
> The content label testing tool I've hacked together on our
> site [4] visits a target URL and looks for RDF data, then
> narrows in to look specifically for ICRA labels (my plan is
> to expand this in the near future but I'm in concept-proving
> mode still). There's a small chunk of rdf on my personal site
> at www.archersenglish.co.uk/labels.rdf. There are links to
> this same file in both the homepage and a dummy page set up
> at www.archersenglish.co.uk/589/. Links [5] and [6] below
> take the label tester off to those 2 pages respectively, it
> grabs the RDF instance and then works out which ICRA label
> applies to the URL in question - needless to say you get a
> different result for each URL.
>
> This is due to the simple rules encoded in the RDF instance -
> any URL on a given list of hosts gets "label 1", but if the
> URL contains "589" it gets label 2. Piggy Bank knows nothing
> about these rules of course so it shows all the RDF classes
> (in my terms, both possible labels) and the rule set itself.
>
> If Piggy Bank were to gain a deep an meaningful understanding
> of the rule set [3] (i.e. had some code added to support the
> functionality!) it would demonstrate the enormous potential
> of all this to the internet safety community. Yes, the labels
> might be used for filtering but they can equally be used to
> show through the kind of visualisation exemplified by Piggy
> Bank that a site is a good resource for homework, contains
> medical information that can be trusted and so on.
>
> Enough for one e-mail. I'm naturally keen to know what you think.
>
> Regards
>
> Phil
>
> [1] http://www.icra.org
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/doc/rdf-contentlabels.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/doc/content-labels-schema.htm
> [4] http://www.icra.org/RDF/label/tester/
> [5]
> http://www.icra.org/cgi-bin/rdf/labelTester.cgi?lang=en&url=ht
> tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.archersenglish.co.uk%2F&ignorePICS=on
> [6]
> http://www.icra.org/cgi-bin/rdf/labelTester.cgi?lang=en&url=ht
> tp%3A%2F%2Fwww.archersenglish.co.uk%2F589%2F&ignorePICS=on
>
>
> Phil Archer
> Chief Technical Officer
> Internet Content Rating Association
> Label your site today at http://www.icra.org
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 09 2005 - 02:09:37 EDT