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.

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:39:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4B851E1C.80903@inf.unibz.it>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 2010-02-24 13:34, Birte Glimm wrote:
> [snip]
>>> A common way to deal with this in a finite approximation way is
>>> a) ignoring (specifically the infinite) axiomatic triples alltogether
>>> b) take only those from the infinite axiomatic triples (those about container membership properties)
>>> that appear in the graph... I believe the latter is what we do in the current RDF(S) entailment regime, yes Birte?
>>
>> b) seems to be the most reasonable way to go; but make sure to include
>> at least one representative (for queries with blank nodes).
> 
> What do you mean with one representative. Can you give an example? I
> don't see what problems queries with blank nodes cause here. Maybe I
> am overlooking something?

If you have a yes/no query:

_:x rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty

on the empty graph I am assuming one wants the answer "yes". If you do
not consider any of the axiomatic triples concerning the container
membership properties, the answer would be "no".

If you were to always consider the axiomatic triples pertaining to at
least one container membership (or perhaps just a blank node), you are
guaranteed to get the answer "yes" in this case.


Jos

> 
> Birte
> 
>> Unnecessarily ignoring parts of the semantics (as in a) seems rather a
>> bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Cheers, Jos
>>
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jos
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jos de Bruijn
>>>>   Web:   http://www.debruijn.net/
>>>>   Phone: +39 0471 016224
>>>>   Fax:   +39 0471 016009
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jos de Bruijn
>>  Web:   http://www.debruijn.net/
>>  Phone: +39 0471 016224
>>  Fax:   +39 0471 016009
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn
  Web:   http://www.debruijn.net/
  Phone: +39 0471 016224
  Fax:   +39 0471 016009
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 12:39:45 GMT

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