KR and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: RIF

  • Michael KiferEmail author
Reference work entry


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.


Resource Description Framework Atomic Formula Semantic Structure Constant Symbol Symbol Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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.


  1. 1.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL web ontology language reference, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duerst, M., Suignard, M.: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). (2005)
  4. 4.
    W3C: RIF: Rule Interchange Format working group. http://www.w3. org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group (2010)
  5. 5.
    Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic, Boston (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clocksin, W., Mellish, C.: Programming in Prolog. Springer, New York (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.: HiLog: a foundation for higher-order logic programming. J. Log Program. 15(3), 187–230 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    FOAF: The friend of a friend (FOAF) project.
  11. 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. (2004)
  12. 12.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF, W3C Proposed Recommendation (Nov 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Jess: Jess, the rule language for the Java platform. (2008)
  16. 16.
    JBoss: Drools. (2010)
  17. 17.
  18. 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. 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. 20.
    Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF basic logic dialect, W3C Recommendation. (June 2010)
  21. 21.
    de Sainte Marie, C., Paschke, A., Hallmark, G.: RIF production rule dialect. (2009)
  22. 22.
    Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF framework for logic dialects, W3C Recommendation. (June 2010)
  23. 23.
    Kifer, M.: FLORA-2: an object-oriented knowledge base language. The FLORA-2 web site.
  24. 24.
    Vulcan, Inc.: The SILK project: semantic inferencing on large knowledge. (2010)
  25. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Bruijn, J.: RIF RDF and OWL compatibility, W3C Recommendation. (June 2010)
  27. 27.
    Boley, H., Hallmark, G., Paschke, M.K.A., Polleres, A., Reynolds, D.: RIF core dialect, W3C Recommendation. (June 2010)
  28. 28.
    Polleres, A., Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF datatypes and built-ins 1.0, W3C Recommendation. (June 2010)
  29. 29.
    Paschke, A., Hirtle, D., Ginsberg, A., Patranjan, P.L., McCabe, F.: RIF use cases and requirements, W3C Working Draft. (Dec 2008)
  30. 30.
    Mitchell, S., Morgenstern, L., Paschke, A.: RIF test cases, W3C Working Draft. (June 2010)
  31. 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. 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. 33.
    Fallside, D., Walmsley, P.: XML schema part 0: primer second edition. Technical report, WWW Consortium. (Oct 2004)
  34. 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. 35.
    Lloyd, J.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Biron, P.V., Malhotra, A.: XML schema part 2: datatypes second edition, W3C Recommendation (Oct 2004)Google Scholar
  37. 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. 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. 39.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Voronkov, A.: Theorem proving and Vampire. The Vampire web site. (2010)
  41. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. 43.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)Google Scholar
  44. 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. 45.
    Beckett, D.: RDF/XML syntax specification (revised), W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hayes, P.: RDF semantics, W3C Recommendation (Feb 2004)Google Scholar
  47. 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. 48.
    Schneider, M.: OWL 2 web ontology language rdf-based semantics, W3C Working Draft (Apr 2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ontoprise, GmbH: Ontobroker.
  50. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations