- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:42:57 +0000
- 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 UTC