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

Re: [TF-ENT] Entailment Regimes telecon

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:09:16 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0911061409w689e98cende8a821ef14df6f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Ups, sorry to hear that. Germans like to plan far ahead ;-)
Birte

2009/11/6 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 22:09:50 GMT

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