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

Re: [TF-ENT] RDFS entailment regime proposal

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:44:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4ABCC952.2030102@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Birte,

(I hope you will get this message...)

- I have a question v.a.v. your first design alternative, ie, excluding
axiomatic triples from the set of query answers. If my data has a
container, ie, I do have

ex:A rdf:_1 ex:Q .

in my data and I use the query

WHERE { ?x rdf:type rdf:Property. }

does it mean that I will not get back a ?x->rdf:_1 mapping? After all,

rdf:_1 rdf:type rdf:Property .

is an axiomatic triple and the way I understood what you wrote this
would be excluded.

I may misunderstand something but if this is the case, I do not think I
like it:-(

- I concur with your remark that the second alternative is fairly
unintuitive...

Bottom line: I think I like the choices you _did_ make:-) (unless I
misunderstood your first design alternative...

Cheers

Ivan

P.S.1: Would it be possible to transfer this wiki page to the Working
Group Wiki? There were some trivial misspelling and my fingers were
itching to change those, but, well, you guys are not on the Group pages...

P.S.2 As an aside, you may want to look at [1] to see if that is a
problem with your mails.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009JulSep/0080.html

Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> whoever is interested in RDFS entailment: I would be very happy about
> comments and suggestions for the RDFS entailment regime as outlined
> in:
> http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL
> 
> Ignore the OWL part for now. It is not at all finished and will
> certainly change! Axel, can you check whether that would work with
> what you have in mind for RIF? My RIF knowledge is far too limited to
> judge that :-(
> 
> There are a view design choices that I have listed at the end of the
> section on RDFS, which could be an alternative to the currently
> proposed way of restricting the answers sets to a finite size. Please
> let me know prefer any of them or have any other suggestions. Ideally,
> a monotonic behavior for queries would be very nice, but that is not
> easy to achieve when solution sequences are possibly infinite without
> restrictions.
> 
> I would like to get access to the CVS and work in a real template. Who
> can arrange that?
> 
> Cheers,
> Birte
> 
> PS: Our email server is still behaving strangely regarding W3C
> messages and I do not even get my own messages, so I might get your
> answers with some delay only :-(
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 13:45:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT