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

Re: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:42:14 +0100
Cc: "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EE8A2A24-DC8A-45A9-91F9-AE8F3BE751E9@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>
BTW, I've not yet decided how I feel on this feature...I'm primarily  
exploring the space at the moment.

On 14 Apr 2009, at 13:04, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> 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:
>>> - 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

That's one design.

> *or* a demand that the answers must be given in light of the
> specified entailment regime?

That's another.

I see arguments for different approaches, and a slightly orthogonal  
argument for thinking about answer completeness/soundness.

The fact of my so seeing prima facie supports Andy's position of "too  

>> 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?

I think it's an eminently sensible combination. But what I think the  
combination is is a RIF supporting endpoint, not an entailment  
"regime" consisting of an idiosyncratic set of rules. Taste differ.

> 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

I don't deny any of this of (some of the) RIF dialects. I think rule  
sets are like ontologies and should only, in certain cases, be  
consider entailment regimes.

> .  Did you mean rule sets
> expressed in dialects other than RIF?

No, I mean saying that "such and such a ruleset is an entailment  
regime". I'm sorta against enatilment regime proliferation.

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 18:42:55 UTC

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