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: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:05:38 -0800
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BC54CFE4-A6D2-4C1E-93AE-23A21FF7173D@deri.org>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
AFAIK, the intersection of RIF and OWL regarding datatypes is RIF.

HTH,

Axel

On 1 Nov 2009, at 07:31, Ivan Herman wrote:

> (I explicitly cc Axel here to put on his RIF WG member hat...)
>
> Hm. I must admit I did not really look into this, I simply took the
> terms used in the RDF Semantics document; more exactly, took over the
> URI-s RIF already uses. And you are right, this is not clear....
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
>
> Sigh:-)
>
> I would probably take the intersection of the OWL and RIF. Ie, leave  
> out
> owl:float and rif:local or rif:iri. Alternatively, we may restrict
> ourselves to what SPARQL defines as operand data types (11.1 in the
> current spec).
>
> Looking at the RIF document
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
>
> RIF uses this URI to identify the common RIF-D model which... seems to
> leave the concrete datatype map open.
>
>> (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?)
>>
>
> The RIF document says:
>
> [[[
> The profiles are ordered as follows, where '<' reads "is lower than":
>
> Simple < RDF < RDFS < D < OWL Full
>
> OWL DL < OWL Full
> ]]]
>
> where 'profiles' means (just to muddy the waters:-) the RIF profiles.
>
> The ordering makes sense but it is more than what the RDF Semantics
> seems to say for D. Axel, can you try to remember the reasoning  
> behind this?
>
> If we want some sort of a compatibility (that is how the whole
> discussion on having separate and general URI-s for these started!)  
> then
> we might want to take that over. It makes sense.
>
> Whether SPARQL really needs a separate RDF entailment here is a
> different question... I am not sure (but the URI would still exist)
>
> Cheers
>
> I.
>
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>
> -- 
>
> 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 16:06:16 GMT

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