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

Re: [TF-PP] Property paths and entailments

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:17:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4C051693.4090102@talis.com>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: W3C SPARQL WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Thanks for that formalism for property paths  - it looks good and gets 
to the root of the simple/complex split in the doc, between paths that 
are shorthand for existing SPARQL queries and paths that express new 
capabilities.  It also helps in defining the cardinality by combination 
of those operations.  I think it captures some useful rewriting of paths 
to more efficient forms as well.


On 28/05/2010 2:57 PM, Birte Glimm wrote:
> On 28 May 2010 09:13, Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org>  wrote:
>> (Lee asked to have different threads to different issues, so here I am)
>> The question was:
>> [[[
>> + How do property paths interact with entailment? Discussion is needed with the members of the WG most swapped in with the entailment work.
>> ]]]
>> My (mental) model has always been that the entailment regime (in principle) expands all graphs to new graphs that include the original graph plus all possible extra triples that the entailment regime produces, and the query itself is performed on this expanded graph. If this model is right, then the natural way of looking at this is that the property path expansions are performed on the entailed graph.
> That is one way of implementing a system that supports, e.g., RDFS,
> entailment. Another approach to implement an an RDFS entailment system
> is to leave the original data unchanged, but rewrite each the query,
> so that the rewritten query contains regular expressions that navigate
> over the queried graph in order to retrieve what would be answers
> under RDFS entailment. This is also not unreasonable since the closure
> of the graph can easily be double the size, so it takes longer to
> evaluate queries over that and on the other hand BGPs from queries are
> usually small, so rewriting is fast and although evaluating BGPs with
> regular expressions is more expensive, you can do that over the
> original graph and not over the blown up closure graph. The Chilenians
> have, for example, a paper describing such an approach
> (http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~cgutierr/papers/nSPARQL.pdf).
> Now I am not sure whether the suggested property path features are
> expressive enough, but suppose they were, then if there is an
> implementation that supports property paths, then I could use that
> system to implementing the RDFS entailment regime simply by writing a
> wrapper around that system that takes plain SPARQL queries, rewrites
> them so that they use property path feature to reflect the
> entailments, and then use the PP-aware system to answer those
> rewritten queries over just the original graph, but what I would get
> is answers as under RDFS entailment. E.g., query Q
> SELECT ?type WHERE { ex:a a ?type }
> Graph:
> ex:a a ex:C.
> ex:C rdfs:subClassOf ex:D.
> ex:C rdfs:subClassOf ex:E.
> Gives
> ?type/ex:C under standard SPARQL and additionally
> ?type/ex:D,?type/ex:E under RDFS entailment.
> If you use the closure approach you would extend G to also contain
> ex:a a ex:C.
> ex:C rdfs:subClassOf ex:D.
> ex:a a ex:D.
> ex:a a ex:E.
> If you use the rewriting technique, you would leave G as it is and
> rewrite Q into
> SELECT ?type WHERE { ex:a a ?freshVar . ?freshVar rdfs:subClassOf* ?type }
> The * for rdfs:subClassOf means that you map ex:a a ?freshVar to G and
> then you can go 0 or more steps over an rdfs:SubClassOf path to what
> gives you the binding for ?type and 0 steps gives ex:C, 1 step ex:D,
> and 2 gives ex:E.
> The entailment regimes doc leaves it open how the regime is
> implemented as long as you get the right answers and both approaches
> are possible.
> Another question is what happens if the originally asked query already
> contains PP expressions. That is not so clear to me, but mostly due to
> the * operator. E.g., in the BGP { ?sub rdfs:subClassOf* ?super }, the
> * is simply redundant if you use RDFS entailment, since
> rdfs:subClassOf is anyway a transitive and reflexive relation. If you
> use * on normal properties, it is not redundant of course. For
> logics/formalisms with finite model property (RDF(S) and OWL 2
> profiles weaker than DL) it should always be possible to check that
> because I can just check the finite canonical model/closure. For OWL
> DL/Full, however, it can be the case that there are only infinite
> models and there is most likely more than one model. Normally, we know
> that under OWL Direct Semantics it is safe to just look at finite
> representations of the models. I would expect that it is theoretically
> possible to evaluate also queries with * over finite representation,
> but that is just a guess and I have no plans to implement that and
> would very much hope that PP support is not required for conformance.
> Looking at the other features (not *) of the document, it seems that
> they can all equally be rewritten into standard SPARQL queries. Then,
> results under entailments would just differ because you might get more
> answers as usual.
> Birte
>> Do I miss some major issue here?
>> Ivan
>> P.S. Sorry I could not join the telco, but I had another WG call (RDFa) exactly at the same time...
>> ----
>> 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
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 14:26:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC