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

Re: RIF+SPARQL (was Re: Entailment regimes open issues)

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:15:02 -0500
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7958696.FB56%ogbujic@ccf.org>
On 2/8/10 8:41 AM, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>> One more problem for the RIF part is that I've always said that we
>> need an editor for RIF and that won't be me. I have not even read the
>> RIF spec (skimmed over parts that touch OWL) and I don't have the time
>> to first understand RIF and which parts of RIF are suitable to
>> integrate with SPARQL and how that can be done properly. We would
>> really need somebody with RIF background to put in the time to write
>> this.

> Yeah, unfortunately, we don't have much intersection here between people
> who know/care about RIF and SPARQL.

I've expressed interest in the past in helping here and I do know/care about
the intersection (personally in the research I do and in how we use SPARQL
at the workplace). 
> Can someone here make the case for why RIF folks should care about this?
> I tried to get interest from the RIF-WG, but I don't think I explained
> it very well.

I believe the case is straight forward, but maybe I'm mistaken.  Any
entailment mechanism for RDF is really only as useful (to the developer
anyways) as it is easy to incorporate into existing tools.  It seems a bit
of a waste to have a way to specify your semantics on the one hand and to
not have a standard way to incorporate them into the standard querying
interface for RDF (SPARQL).  This was one of the major motivations behind
SPARQL-DL.  I would think RIF folks would be interested in further
integrating RIF into the SW specifications so it can be used with ease and
in a practical way (rather than relying on two separate subsystems: SPARQL
over fully-entailed graphs and a RIF processor).  Otherwise, you run the
risk of having a nice way to specify rule-based semantics that is an island
onto itself in the SW technology stack.
> The general idea, I gather, is to be able to do SPARQL queries against a
> RIF-powered deductive triple store.  But I don't understand what needs
> to be spec'd for that; it seems to me like the parts fit together in
> exactly one obvious way.

I still think if we settle on a lowest common denominator (a safe RIF
profile such as RIF Core - whose entailment relationship should coincide
with that of OWL2) to start with, the current framework in the entailment
specification can be re-used for the most part in a straightforward way.

-- 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

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, 8 February 2010 14:22:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:59 UTC