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

Re: Importing RIF

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:32:53 +0000
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF7907E4-C94D-4B0A-901D-9EEE80D3B4C5@deri.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
With Birte's consent, I have now added 
this material in the current entailment regimes draft:

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml#id0x2213c7d0

1)
I'd like to request review (mainly from Sandro, Birte & Chime at this point) and particularly with respect to the following issues:
 - sandro: Can you check the RIF-in-RDF encoding of the example ruleset?
 - Chime: Can you check whether other sections need rewriting (particularly those that had mentioned rif:imports before, so far I only changed rif:imports to    
   rif:usedWithProfile throughout, but didn't really check in detail whether the text around needs to be adapted with regards to the newly introduced section)
 - Birte: I reworded the non-normative section and added more information on aspects of storing RDF encodings of RIF rulesets in the dataset of an RDF store, including 
   a new example, which should make things clearer. let me know what you think
(I think this doesn't necessarily need TC time, except assigning ACTIONs in this regard for review.)

2)
Given that the section is quite long now, I'd propose to move it at the end of section 7, i.e. make it 7.4 instead of 7.1... any objections?

3)
One more thing: "non-normative" vs. "informative" what is the preferred terminology? (i've seen both, as far as I remember, but within a document at leaset, we should be consistent)


best,
Axel

 
On 12 Dec 2010, at 11:13, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hi Axel,
> 
> interestingly, a question was posted on the SWIG list on this issue[1] recently...
> 
> In fact, this begs a procedural question. What you do in this document is to define a new predicate and its semantics. The predicate is in the RIF namespace, I presume the RIF WG is o.k. with that (recalling the mailing list discussions there). However, the mechanism itself, ie, the semantics of rif:usedWithProfile, is not SPARQL specific (see [1] below). I wonder whether it is worth separating this into a distinct document that can be referenced to in general as a Rec in its own right.
> 
> (B.t.w., I like the design:-)
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Dec/0098.html
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 19:38 , Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
>> Sandro and I have drafted - in coordination with the RIF WG - a section on importing RIF, wiki version at:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Importing_RIF
>> 
>> I would also like to discuss this in the course of entailment regimes, this part shall replace the 
>> current Section 7.1 in the entailment regimes document:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/#id35811453
>> 
>> I got some comments from Birte already, which were mainly about clarifying some parts, other comments certainly welcome!
>> 
>> This completes ACTION-298, BTW.
>> best,
>> Axel
> 
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 22:33:26 GMT

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