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

Re: Re 2: [TF-ENT] OWL Direct Semantics added

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:05:34 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0912190505u602adb1cqc6772b0ca6189142@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> if there is a general agreement in the WG, we should record that
> somewhere (next meeting?) and I can then initiate the process of asking
> for the namespaces and to populate it with the right RDFa files.
>
> I explicitly cc-d Birte here to see if the OWL 'side' of the world sees
> any issues with that (I do not expect, but who knows...)

I think that's a good idea.

Greg, I've explicitly added the URI that Ivan reserved for the
entailment regimes to the corresponding sections in the spec. For
Direct Semantics, I've also added a section for the profiles and I
shortly describe each profile and state the URI (well, ??? at the
moment) that endpoints can use to advertise in their SD that they
support that profiles, see
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#id41240548
If that's what you had in mind, I can do the sae for OWL RDF-Based
Semantics (for the Full and RL profiles).

Using sd:EntailmentRegime as rdfs:Class seems fine for me. As I
understood it, you "define" them. If not you, who would define them or
where would they be defined?

Birte

> Ivan
>
> On 12/18/2009 09:31 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>> Just on a very technical and minor note: after discussions with the SW
>>> CG, there are common URI-s now for the entailment regimes, see
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/
>>>
>>> I would be happy to set up a similar set of generic URI-s for the
>>> profiles (including DL).
>>
>> Adding the profiles would help me in describing them in the service description document. Also, is there an rdfs:Class that these belong to? In the SD document I've been describing them as belonging to sd:EntailmentRegime, but if they are defined outside of the SD document, perhaps they should have their own type? (Similarly for the profiles.)
>>
>> thanks,
>> .greg
>>
>
> --
>
> 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 Saturday, 19 December 2009 13:06:10 GMT

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