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

Re: finite approximation of the minimal Herbrand model for a RIF Core/BLD ruleset. (was: [TF-ENT] Agenda 24th Feb teleconf)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:24:13 +0000
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Message-Id: <7E478D08-DB43-4776-83DE-4B6B8EFDD901@deri.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Jos De Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Below I forward some thought from jos on this with his consent:

@jos: can you ealborate what exactly you mean here:

> 2- the RDF(S) semantics gives you more than just blank nodes.

in how far is this a (potential) problem?

Axel


> ============================================================================
> On 2010-02-24 12:07, Axel Polleres wrote:
> >
> > On 24 Feb 2010, at 11:04, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> >> On 2010-02-24 11:28, Axel Polleres wrote:
> >>> Hi Jos,
> >>>
> >>> Can you check this briefly and tell me whether I don't oversimplify
> >>> things here?
> >>
> >> I will have a more detailed look at it later on, but a few first comments:
> >> - you do not consider equality between data values, e.g.
> >> "1"^^int="1"^^decimal
> >
> > hmmm, I am at the moment, not sure how far this is a problem, but I definitly should include this in the issues!
> >
> >
> >> - I did not see how a minimal model for RIF-RDF combinations is defined,
> >> in particular I see no blank nodes or RDF(S) semantics
> >
> > ? Can't we just treat them as skolem constants? We are just interested in query answering...
> 
> 1- if you treat blank nodes as skolem constants you need to say so.
> 2- the RDF(S) semantics gives you more than just blank nodes.
> 
> > if you agree, I forward your comments to SPARQL, ok?
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> Jos
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 11:24:48 GMT

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