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

ACTION: counting test case [Was: Re: Agenda request: characterize the diffs between subgraph-matching and E-entailment]

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:09:01 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20061127160901.GD31800@w3.org>
I recall having an action item to bring up a test case with counting
semantics. This message includes this test case and some related material.

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:46:10PM +0200, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:21:05PM +0200, 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], if we will have Pat, Bijan and Fred, I
> > propose we work on some E-entailment semantics issues:
> > 
> >    1. does E-entailment support counting semantics?
> > 
> >    2. can we an express the differences between subgraph matching and
> >       E-entailment semantics in test cases?
> > 
> > Issues list identifier: entailmentFramework [ENT]
> > 
> > OWL example leaning on non-distinguished variables: [OWL]
> > Reduced version written as a test case: rdfSemantics/owl-lunch [LCH]
> > 
> > Some test cases to characterize the behavoir of the language
> > apparently not captured in the current semantics:
> > 
> >   bnode-type-var [CNT]: can we count duplicate results?
> > 
> >   bNode-constraint [BCN]: are bNode labels allowed in FILTERs?
> > 
> >   bNode-join [BJN]: do bNode lables bridge basic graph patterns?
> > 
> > 
> > [DAN] http://www.w3.org/mid/452622B3.9090202@danbri.org
> > [ENT] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#entailmentFramework
> > [OWL] http://www.w3.org/mid/20060713162342.GA12357@w3.org
> > [LNH] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/rdfSemantics/owl-lunch.ttl
> >       http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/rdfSemantics/owl-lunch.rq
> > [CNT] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#rdfsemantics-bnode-type-var
> 
> ARG, forgot that the names are LC'd
> 
> [BCN] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#rdfsemantics-bnode-constraint
> [BJN] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#rdfsemantics-bnode-join
> 

-- 
-eric

home-office: +1.617.395.1213 (usually 900-2300 CET)
cell:        +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 16:09:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT