W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Agenda request: characterize the diffs between subgraph-matching and E-entailment

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:58:23 +0100
Message-Id: <7143685B-5063-44BD-A3F1-D3E2DDA44108@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>

On Oct 9, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:11:19AM +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> The first line contains descriptive text with a link. the descriptive
>> text is:
>> 	""Open Issue: Should blank nodes be treated differently than
>> variables in the query pattern?."""
>> The linked to text is:
>> 	"""entailmentFramework
>> 	I'm collecting all the issues related to entailment and SPARQL here
>> till either a
>> 	theme emerges or they get broken into separate issues.
>> 	Neatly summarized by FredZ here
>> 	FredZ's request re: entailment framework and bnode scope
>> 		others that are related here but lumped under separate heads
>> above..."""
>> So the first thing to recognize is that this is a catch all issue
>> rather than a specific focused issue, as is indicated by the last
>> line. So, it is confusing to have it "distilled" into a single
>> question, especially when that question is not broad but exceedingly
>> narrow.
> Per Danbri's comments [DAN],

How is this "per"?

> if we will have Pat, Bijan and Fred, I
> propose we work on some E-entailment semantics issues:

I'd rather not, especially on short notice like this.

>    1. does E-entailment support counting semantics?

Especially when the issues thus far raised are completely irrelevant  
to anything on our plate for this *entire round of standardization*.

(Plus, it's a non sequitur.)

>    2. can we an express the differences between subgraph matching and
>       E-entailment semantics in test cases?

I believe not if the bug is repaired a la Enrico's post.

That would be the point.

We have plenty of things to discuss (a NAF operator, filter stuff,  
the paradoxical post, things I'm already tasked e.g.,  
compositionality, etc.). None of this stuff has been raised in email  
and Pat is chairing.

*Evidently* we need to refresh people's understanding of the panoply  
of issues, and, frankly, the best way is to start good email threads.

Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 14:58:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:52 UTC