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

Re: Review of Entailment Regimes (Action-317)

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:40:44 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=pXztH6U6c6=G2S15GNVCcwmsQ-cEq5hNsE-P@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
and again with Reply All... (see below)

On 3 October 2010 09:21, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Birte,
>
> On Oct 2, 2010, at 20:01 , Birte Glimm wrote:
>>
>>> Comments on your comments, too:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> - At the end of Section 2.2 I added an editorial note, which suggests
>>>> an alternative C2 condition that basically forbits terms of the form
>>>> rdf:_n as bindings. I am a bi concerned that if you want to implemen
>>>> the regime via a set of materialisation rules, then at the moment, you
>>>> have to look for which n the terms rdf:_n occur in the graph and for
>>>> all those you add the axiomatic triples. This seems hard to do with a
>>>> set of pre-defined rules that is independent of the input. If you
>>>> would use the alternative, materialisation rules do not have to care
>>>> for which n a term rdf:_n occurs in the input. I think it might be
>>>> useful to point this out and maybe get some feedback from implementors.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand the difficulty, having done some experimental rule based implementation of Horst myself some time ago. Indeed, the engine has to have a special branch that, for example, looks at the maximum 'n' for rdf:_n (Horst's condition was a bit more liberal than what we have). But I am, nevertheless, a bit wary about this alternative because, to use the example in the document, the user's expectation would clearly be to get rdf:_n back as an rdf:Property. I am not sure we should optimize on the implementation here (clearly, it _can_ done by an implementation, it is just a pain in the neck...)
>>
>> I also think that the current condition is nicer and I would like to
>> keep it, but I am a bit concerned that this might not be what people
>> actually implement, so I think asking for feedback could help us to
>> judge whether we suggest something that just won't be accepted out in
>> the wild.
>>
>
> And I agree with that. But maybe add a note to the note that we are looking, primarily, to the feedbacks from implementers.

I added now at the beginning of the note:

The Working Group is particularly interested in feedback from
implementors regarding the treatmeant of axiomatic triples with
subjects of the form rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ...

Birte

> Ivan
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 10:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT