Uncertainty treatment in the rule interchange format: from encoding to extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harold.Boley AT nrc.gc.ca Abstract. The Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is an emerging W3C format that allows rules to be exchanged between rule systems. Uncertainty is an intrinsic feature of real world knowledge, hence it is important to take it into account when building logic rule formalisms. However, the set of truth values in the Basic Logic Dialect (RIF-BLD) currently consists of only two values (t and f). In this paper, we first present two techniques of encoding uncertain knowledge and its fuzzy semantics in RIF-BLD presentation syntax. We then propose an extension leading to an Uncertainty Rule Dialect (RIF-URD) to support a direct representation of uncertain knowledge. In addition, rules in Logic Programs (LP) are often used in combination with the other widely-used knowledge representation formalism of the Semantic Web, namely Description Logics (DL), in order to provide greater expressive power. To prepare DL as well as LP extensions, we present a fuzzy extension to Description Logic Programs (DLP), called Fuzzy DLP, and discuss its mapping to RIF. Such a formalism not only combines DL with LP, as in DLP, but also supports uncertain Description Logics (DL) and Logic Programs (LP) are the two main categories of knowledge
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".