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: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:24:30 +0100
Message-ID: <452AA1EE.5060303@hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> . . .
>>> I believe not if the bug is repaired a la Enrico's post.
>> Which post are you referring to?  The last one in the archive from 
>> Enrico is August 11.
> Er...I don't know if there's a specific fix post. I just meant that 
> there was a bug in that the two semantics didn't align, but that's a 
> repairable thing, IIRC.

That's the claim and I hope it's true.  I haven't seen anything yet that gets 
us to revised text and that concerns me.  It will take quite some discussion 
to stabilize the changes.

What we do have is consensus that the implementation hint [1] should match the 
revised semantic definition for the cases where they overlap.

 > It doesn't have anything directly to do with
>> . . .
>>> *Evidently* we need to refresh people's understanding of the panoply 
>>> of issues, and, frankly, the best way is to start good email threads.
>> We do have test cases that have been around for a while.  We could 
>> start by email about those.
> Sounds good. But could we deal first with some of these algebra issues?

Only if we take the implementation hint for SPARQL defined for simple 
entailment (which is this round of standardization).  Otherwise, building test 
cases isn't much use.  We can't write test cases on top of a changing BGP 
semantics unless we rigidly assume the implementation hint.

Test cases are:
1/ A deliverable we are chartered to provide
2/ A good way of making sure we are talking about the same thing.

> I say this because I only have so much energy and attention at the 
> moment (aside from being overwhelmed with stuff, I'm having ongoing, we 
> believe arthritis med related, complications which are draining). I'm a 
> bit surprised to see how many actions I took on last week!

Sorry to hear that - I hope any complications will be brief.

> Claudio and Jorge's papers and posts are publically available, so I'm 
> totally not the gatekeeper.
> Unless there is some reason to believe that the semantics of BGP and the 
> algebra are tangled up more than we might have different inputs to the 
> algebra...there's no need to couple or order them in any specific way, yes?

I have always proposed keeping them separate as they are in my mind.  And no 
ordering is therefore fine - we have test cases that have been submitted about 
entailment and have had for a while now.


> Cheers,
> Bijan.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html#BGPsparql
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 19:24:50 UTC

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