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

Re: [TF-ENT] Agenda for this week's ent. regimes teleconf

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:54:36 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1003100954ue44c74ale1fb5c089ee3e9f0@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all,
the conference code for todays entailment regime teleconf is: 772775.
Birte

On 8 March 2010 15:33, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've read the RIF sections and I am really happy about the progress
> that I see. Much better than anything I could produce with my limited
> RIF knowledge. I'll try to compile the main open points (taking into
> account Ivan's and Chime's own comments) for our teleconf on Wednesday
> below. If you have any additions or amendments, please let me know. I
> also have a few smaller/editorial comments, which I'll send in a
> separate email.
> Cheers,
> Birte
>
> * Date of Call: Wednesday March 10, 2010
> * Time of Call: 18:00 UK, 13:00 (East US)
> * Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
> * Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
> * Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
> * Participant Access Code:
>    Zakim will tell us when the ad hoc conference is set up
> * IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql
>    ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql])
> * Duration: 60 minutes
>
>  o Proposed RIF entailment regime
>  - Safe vs. Strongly Safe, we use both, should we always use the
> strong variant?
>  - Why do we need (C2) for the RIF-RDF case? Will we have separate
> entailment regimes for RIF
> Core combined with RDF, RDFS, and OWL Full/DL?
>  - Editorial note: The 8th condition of a common-RIF-RDF-interpretation:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rif-rdf-owl-20091001/#def-common-rif-rdf-interpretation
>    includes the set-theoretic semantics of rdfs:subClassOf that are
> also used by the RDFS Entailment regime.
>  - What's the best imports URI: sparql-rif:useRuleset,
> rif:useRuleset, or rif-rdf:useRuleset/ I thought we had an agreement
> for making it SPARQL specific, but that maybe applied to the fact that
> the definition is part of the net. regimes doc, but not necessarily
> the namespace.
>  - Embedding a subset of RIF-OWL combinations (OWL 2 RL for instance) as
> extensions to this entailment regime (issues of consistency checking,
> axiomatic triples and rules)
>  - A mapping from all the SPARQL builtins to corresponding RIF
> builtins (beyond those in the RIF Datatypes and Built-Ins document)
> could further close the expressive gap between RIF Core and SPARQL.
> They would most likely all be safe (and maybe also strongly safe).
>  - Are there examples of RIF Core (normatively) safe rulesets /
> documents that use builtins that do not introduce new values into the
> domain that are useful as arguments against the finite restrictions?
> (extant N3 Logic / CWM builtins don't really do that except the
> obvious log:semantics, etc.)
>
>
> --
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283529
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 17:55:10 GMT

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