Re: [TF-ENT] Entailment Regimes telecon

Ouch. I did not realize we talk about November 13, ie, next week, and
neither did Andy. We were both on the call, but for no avail..

Oh well. See you next week:-)

Ivan

Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> since there will not be much time at the F2F to discuss entailment
> regimes related issues, I got action 129 to set up a separate telecon
> for the week after the F2F. We will most likely also discuss issues
> also related to SD and update (see below), so if anybody else wants to
> join in, it would be great.
> 
> The doodle poll suggests Friday 13th 14.00-15.00 UK time (15.00-16.00
> rest of europe, I think tht is 09:00-10:00 EST, Sandro is that where
> you are?). IRC channel sparql-ent.
> I hope the dial in numbers are the same as usual...
> 
>        • Date of Call: Friday November 13, 2009
>        • Time of Call: 14:00 UK, 09:00 (East US), 15:00 Rest of Europe
>        • IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql-ent
> ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql-ent])
>        • Duration: 60 minutes
> 
> Birte
> 
> Issues to discuss:
>     * [ISSUE 28]: Entailment regimes vs. update?
> This obviously also relates to update. I am not sure it is compatible
> with the conditions on extensions to BGP matching, but one way to go
> would be to always apply simple entailment semantics to update
> queries. That would be a bit of a burden for OWL Direct Semantics
> application because you have to implement data structures to keep an
> RDF graph that you use to do the updates and after each update you
> have to convert from the triples into the OWL logical constructs.
> Another option would be to say that update is not yet defined for use
> with entailment regimes and leave that open to future versions of
> SPARQL.
> 
>     * [ISSUE 34]: How do entailment regimes interaction with
> aggregates, grouping, and blank nodes?
> I think that is clear now from the definition of the semantics,
> although we might have to make it clearer to readers?
> 
>     * [ISSUE 40]: How can other entailment regimes plug in their
> semantics to SPARQL/Update?
> see issue 28
> 
>     * [ISSUE 42]: TF-ENT What should happen for RDFS entailment in the
> face of inconsistencies?
> Are we all happy with the current solution?
> 
>     * [ISSUE 43]: should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole
> dataset or individual graphs?
> This relates to service descriptions as well. Andy is in favour of
> being able to declare entailment regimes per graph and I am slightly
> in favour of that too. If the majority thinks so, we should probably
> asks for an extension in this direction in the service description
> doc.
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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