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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:49:13 +0000
Cc: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07DC1364-CD9F-4028-9652-A321D4E0235F@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 1 Nov 2009, at 10:57, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 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

I'm sorry that I seem to be missing something, but what does D  
indicate exactly? The ambiguity that concerns me is that it could  
indicate that the system respects the semantics of "datatypes in  
general" or of a specific set of datatypes.

I presume it's the latter and the requisite datatype map is from:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
?

But that's not very well specified. It would be better to use the OWL  
2/RIF specs, I think, or some subset thereof. (E.g., we shouldn't  
leave open whether float and integer are disjoint.)

(I wonder whether using "D" is the best thing to do here. The term "D- 
entailment" is pretty obscure as far as I can tell. And, in this case,  
would it also entail RDF semantics? RDFS? Do we really need RDF?)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 13:49:43 GMT

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