W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [ENT] Review comments on the SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime document

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:20:52 -0400
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
cc: "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "W3C SPARQL WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C8170F54.119A5%ogbujic@ccf.org>
Thanks for the review Ivan, see responses below for those comments referring
to my sections.

On 5/12/10 11:04 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> -----------
> Section 7
> 
> At the moment, the http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/ vocabulary does _not_
> include the
> 
> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF-RDF-Strongly-Safe-Core
> 
> but only
> 
> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF
> 
> It is easy for me to add this additional URI, but I have to be sure this is
> o.k. with the RIF group, and whether it is the correct name. And, if I add
> this, shouldn't I add others? Which ones? Axel, Sandro, can you help on that?

Ok, I'll leave that one as is until there is further input

> -----------
> Section 7.1
> 
> I think we have a pending issue as for which namespace rif:imports is in. The
> current text does not specifies this at all. There should be a namespace
> document, too.

I have explicitly designated the following namespace URI:


            http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF-RIF-imports

I'm not sure who is responsible for setting up the namespace document, but
text from this section should be sufficient for the body of such a document.

> -----------
> Section 7.1
> In other words, I cannot dynamically assign rule sets to the dataset. For a
> user this looks like a serious restriction because that means that the dataset
> provider dictates the rule sets it has, rather than the user.
> 
> Isn't it possible to say that the rdf:imports can also be part of the BGP and
> has, well, the same semantics of referring to a rule set?
> 
> Actually, the same question applies to various OWL regimes, too. Can I have a
> [] owl:imports <...> in my BGP? Should we allow this?

Per the thread with you and Birte on this, I have not done anything since a
more fundamental change to the SPARQL syntax would be needed to facilitate
query-time specification of a ruleset to use (and this was ruled out early).

> -----------
> Section 7.1
> 
> The text refers to http://www.w3.org/2007/rif-import-profile#Simple but that
> URI does not seem to exist. Do you mean
> 
> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/Simple
> 
> which is referred to from
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#Importing_RDF_and_OWL_in_RIF?

Changed.
 
> -----------
> Section 7.2
> 
> The rule set example uses
> 
> <> rif-rdf:usesRuleset <... path to the above document ...> .
> 
> shouldn't that be
> 
> rif:imports
> 
> instead?

Changed.
 
> -----------
> I wonder whether it would be good adding some additional (informal) text in
> the RIF related text that makes it clear that, although we define the
> entailment regime only in terms of the RIF-Simple, it is possible to define
> RIF Core rule sets that describe RDFS and even OWL-RL. Ie, with suitable rule
> sets, this entailment is much more powerful than it looks at first. A
> reference to
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-owl-rl-20100511/
> 
> and to ter Horst's paper (which, actually, still appears in the reference
> list) would be useful.

I've added a new section: 7.2 Custom Rulesets for Common Vocabulary
Interpretations (Informative) that discusses this.

-- Chime


===================================

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and
locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 19:21:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT