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

[TF-ENT] Entailment regimes doc update

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:42:57 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1002160942g2e1f17adh30f44e3f3122d009@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Hi all,
I have committed a new version of the entailment regimes document:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml

There is now a description of the OWL RDF-Based Semantics incl. the
OWL 2 RL profile. The OWL 2 RL profile can also be used with Direct
Semantics, so I have added that there too. Further I have added a
section about aggregates with RDF(S) entailment, addressing at least
parts of Axel's comments (no owl:sameAs discussion yet for
aggregation). I also defined the behaviour for inconsistent graphs
more clearly because the previous spec didn't define the scoping graph
in the case of inconsistencies. It was rather assumed that the scoping
graph is still equivalent to the active graph, so that systems can
just use the graph as is modulo bnode renaming, but that allowed
infinite answers for inconsistent graphs. I now use Axel's suggestion
for condition C2 and require not only bindings for variables inn
subject position to occur in the input, but require this for all
variables. This also solves the OWL RDF-Based semantics problem where
you can have infinite answers from owl:topDataProperty, which relates
an individual to all data values. Now all RDF-Based regimes (RDF,
RDFS, OWL 2 RDF-Based (for OWL Full and OWL RL)) use the same
definitions, which is nice IMO.

Birte


-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 17:43:30 GMT

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