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

[public-rdf-dawg] <none>

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:29:54 +0200 (MEST)
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Message-id: <0L2L006G8LTTLLC0@vfnlw43s.vfnl.dc-ratingen.de>
3C SPARQL WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [ENT] Review comments on the
 SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime document
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:29:54 +0200
Message-ID: <vM1p4R8WR81r.zMHHbjCk@authsmtp.vodafone.nl>
X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: i-default
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



-original message-
Subject: Re: [ENT] Review comments on the SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime =
document
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: 2010-05-18 05:54


> > On 5/12/10 11:04 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >> -----------
> >> Section 7
> >>=3D20
> >> At the moment, the http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/ vocabulary does =
=3D
> _not_
> >> include the
> >>=3D20
> >> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF-RDF-Strongly-Safe-Core
> >>=3D20
> >> but only
> >>=3D20
> >> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF
> >>=3D20
> >> It is easy for me to add this additional URI, but I have to be sure =
=3D
> this is
> >> o.k. with the RIF group, and whether it is the correct name. And, if =
=3D
> I add
> >> this, shouldn't I add others? Which ones? Axel, Sandro, can you help =
=3D
> on that?
> >=3D20
> > Ok, I'll leave that one as is until there is further input
>=20
> I leave that to Axel and Sandro

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to follow this for a while.  =
How
urgent is this?  Things for me relax a little in two weeks, I think.

Offhand, I'm unpleasantly surprised that anyone would want to name a
subset of Core.  Subsetting Core is bad for interoperability.  But =
maybe
there are issues I'm missing.


[IH] it would be good to settle this before publication. Note, however, =
that the entailment URIs do not even include Core, only RIF. The message I =
got was that syntax should automatically determine the level of RIF =
entailment. This reminds me a bit of the difference between the various owl =
profiles, and we indeed have separate uri schemes for the owl profiles. The =
answer may be to define a separate set uris for rif core, rif bld rif pld, =
etc, under a scheme rif-dialects/...

Would that work?

The fact that we refer to a subset of core that is not an official dialect =
may still be an issue, though. We may refer to core only and define tha =
sparql entailment so that this definition is valid for the strongly safe =
subset.

Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 04:43:13 GMT

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