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

Re: [TF-Ent] RIF Core Entailment section

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:23:18 +0000
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <923AB033-9C0A-448E-BDCC-3E953E94FA28@deri.org>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>

On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:30, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> On 3/10/10 12:58 PM, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> > "The compatibility document defines 3 additional notions of RIF
> > satisfiability with respect to a combination that builds on simple
> > entailment: RIF-RDF, RIF-RDFS, and RIF-D satisfiability."
> >
> > I's suggest to  mention RIF-simple satisfiability, explicitly, before.
> 
> I've reworded that part to better explain how the RIF-simple model theory is
> the basis for the other 3 and emphasized that entailment regime is only for
> simple entailment (it is now called Simple RIF Core).
> 
> > "For the purpose of this entailment regime, we will only define
> > answers with respect to those RDF graphs that are RIF-RDF satisfiable
> > and RIF-RDF-entailed by the combination formed from the scoping graph
> > and a referenced, strongly safe RIF-Core [RIF-Core] document."
> >
> > why not RIF-simple?
> 
> See above
> 
> > ---
> >
> > "Any legal RDF graph. RDF graphs that do not have a statement with a
> > predicate of rif-rdf:usesRuleset will not be applicable to this
> > entailment regime"
> > I find this too strong. It seems to preclude to use e.g. an RDF stroe
> > which has some default Ruleset, it uses.
> > Can we get around this?
> 
> I'm not sure how else you can be explicit about the ruleset that will be
> used to form the combination.

What I meant more was whether we need always to require to be explicit.

> > ------
> >
> > "well-formed RDF triples that are RIF-RDF-entailed by the RIF-RDF
> > combination formed from SG and the strongly safe RIF core documents
> > referenced from SG via the rif-rdf:usesRuleset predicate."
> >
> > this seems to include all the RDF axiomatic triples! so possibly
> > infinite answers, unless you meant to use s/RIF-RDF/RIF-simple/g in
> > all the above said.
> 
> Yes, this has all been changed to use RIF simple, so conditions that limit
> the solutions to terms in a vocabulary to ensure finiteness are no longer
> needed (in the case of combinations with a strongly safe RIF core document).
> 
> > However, I think we could - quite easily - extend that to RIF-RDF and
> > RIF-RDFS alalogoosly as we do it for the RDF and RDFS entailment regimes!
> 
> I'm planning on adding an informative section on how the mechanisms such as
> the embeddings in the RIF-RDF compatibility document can be used to build
> other RIF Core entailment regimes that coincide with (finite) RDF, RDFS, and
> OWL2-RL entailment.
> 

sounds good, let's see how far we get there!

Thanks for all your work/efforts!

Axel

> -- Chime
> 
> 
> ===================================
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> 
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009). 
> Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> 
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 15:23:52 GMT

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