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

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

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:25:34 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1002080725h1151a8a2v39526e1844725f85@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> 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).

Chime, if  you want to co-edit that section I am happy to introduce
you to how I handle the problematic cases for RDF(S) and OWL so far.

>> 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.

It is probably really straightforward, I just don't know RIF enough to
judge this. OWL Direct Semantics is certainly a bit different and even
OWL RDF-Based semantics introduces a view more pitfalls (infinite
answers from owl:TopDataProperty for example). For OWL I am confident
that I can define these and handle them appropriately. For RIF I would
consider it a bit risky because I might easily miss some corner cases.

Birte

> -- 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.
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 15:26:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT