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

Entailment Regimes Doc

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:42:08 +0100
Message-Id: <39ABADC7-10D4-425A-8B6E-359AB090745B@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I've skimmed the document, and I have some questions and comments.

1) I'm sure sure how the scoping graph and active graph related to the  
rest of the document. Linking to the definitions in SPARQL 1.0 might  
be more helpful. I don't find the related section in SPARQL 1.0  
especially clear either, but it's trying to talk in very general terms.

2) Where it says "Systems who want to support... can state..." is that  
intended to be a requirement for the service description section, or  
is state meant in an informal sense?

3) In the section on RDFS, I share Andy's concerns. My systems  
wouldn't have been able to detect the inconsistent case with  
acceptable efficiency either.

General notes:

It's not clear to me how the terms used 1) relate to the ground data.  
I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of typical OWL reasoners,  
so it could be obvious to practitioners.

Is the implication that inference only happens within a (named) graph?

If not, is there an intention to specify what bindings ?g might take  
in the following example:

   :p rdfs:domain :A .

   :x :p :y .

   SELECT ?g WHERE { GRAPH ?g { :x a ?type } }

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 15:42:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC