W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:04:14 -0400
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
cc: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C609F3FE.9A6A%ogbujic@ccf.org>
On 4/14/09 7:12 AM, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2009, at 09:13, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I didn't manage to separate the issues on the wiki
>> yet, but I suggest, in connection with parameterized inference to
>> put the following four items to strawpoll, trying to summarize
>> Bijan's/Andy's suggestions:
>> - ADVERTISE ENTAILMENT: should we work on a mechanism to specify the
>> entailment regime supported by an engine (endpoint side
>> parameterized inference, i.e. the endpoint be able to specify what
>> entailment it supports)
> You mean "machine readably advertise" right? Unlike the current sitch.

+1 to machine readability of supported ENTAILMENT
>> - REQUEST ENTAILMENT: should we work on a mechanism to request the
>> entailment regime in a query (query side side parameterized
>> inference, i.e. the requester be able to specify what entailment it
>> expects, Bijan seemed to have suggested that the engine may respond
>> falling back to another entailment regime,
> That's one design.

So, is this a switch that indicates whether the parameterized inference
included in the query behaves like content negotiation for additional
answers *or* a demand that the answers must be given in light of the
specified entailment regime?
>> My strawpoll vote would be +1 for all of these, although I could
>> imagine that e.g. SUPPORTED ENTAILMENT REGIMES could go into a note
>> rather than Rec track, if that is preferred.

> Well, we have support for OWL entailment. Once we have that it's just
> a matter of defining them. I don't think RDF through RIF should be
> that hard.
> I'm a little reluctant to use rule sets *as* entailment regimes..I'd
> rather encourage people to support a "sensible dialect".

You don't consider a RIF-RDF combination to be a sensible dialect? It
provides an entailment relation, a notion of well-formedness, satisfaction,
and the possibility of guaranteeing finite additional answers; all of which
contribute to defining an entailment regime.  Did you mean rule sets
expressed in dialects other than RIF?

-- Chimezie


P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 12:05:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:56 UTC