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

Re: [TF-ENT] URIs for entailment regimes in service descriptions

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:57:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4AED6981.1080604@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Birte,

I was not at the call, sorry about that.

What I try to propose to the SW Coordination Group is the following set
of URI-s

http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/Simple
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDFS
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/D
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/OWL-Direct
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/OWL-RDF-Based
http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/D

http://www.w3.org/ns/owl2-profile/Full
http://www.w3.org/ns/owl2-profile/DL
http://www.w3.org/ns/owl2-profile/EL
http://www.w3.org/ns/owl2-profile/QL
http://www.w3.org/ns/owl2-profile/RL

This seems to cover what the RIF group requires, it seems to be o.k. for
 OWL (although you might want to convince Ian that the profile ones are
necessary) and seems to cover what SPARQL needs.

What may be controversial whether the Full and DL profiles are really
necessary; after all, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL ie, it is a
profile although the term is not used. But if we do not need it, we can
just not create those for now.

Does this work for you, ie, for SPARQL?

Thanks!

Ivan




Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> in the telecon we shortly discussed whether we would need two URIs for
> the two OWL Semantics (RDF-Based and Direct (<- Model Theoretic,
> Description Logics)) or URIs for each OWL Profile.
> For RDF-Based seantics, we have two profiles:
> OWL Full and OWL RL
> OWL Full handles all legal RDF graphs and so does an OWL RL system.
> For OWL RL, if the input belongs to a certain fragment (the OWL RL
> fragment), then the system is guaranteed to sound and complete,
> otherwise the system might be incomplete.
> 
> For Direct semantics we have three profiles:
> OWL QL, OWL EL, and OWL DL
> Any OWL DL reasoner can handle all three (but not arbitrary OWL Full).
> OWL EL reasoners can also handle OWL QL, and OWL QL reasoners do only
> OWL QL.
> Inputs outside of the supported fragment will be rejected, i.e., an
> OWL QL system works only on inpus that fall into the OWL QL fragment.
> OWL EL systems will accept inputs that fall into the EL (and thus also
> into the QL) fragment, etc
> 
> The problem with using just one URI per semantics is that OWL QL and
> EL systems will possibly reject many input ontologies that are OWL DL
> because they are outside of their fragment. If we have just one URL,
> then I cannot know what the system will accept. It is trial and error.
> For RDF-Based semantics it seems to be less of an issue, but for
> Direct Semantics it would make more sense IMO to have different URIs
> and then it would be a bit wired to have only one for RDF-Based
> semantics, but three for Direct Semantics.
> 
> Birte
> 

-- 

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 Sunday, 1 November 2009 10:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT