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: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:28:04 +0000
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0D7EE9DD-4664-455C-96F2-CCDBEC6B6ED3@deri.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 13 Dec 2010, at 12:50, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:40 , Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
>>> I understand the RIF WG situation. Ie, the decision to put it into the SPARQL document is procedurally a possibility. The possibility I was wondering abot is that the SPARQL WG put this note as a REC separately and then the entailment document would refer to it.
>> 
>> Hmm, Sandro's and my idea was rather the other way around, cf.
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-01
>> i.e. copy the spec to our SPARQL document and then see whether the RIF-in-RDF [2] doc goes further than a Note (upon which we can't really rely):
>> 
>> The rationale is:
>> - this way doesn't to put us under stress to put the RIF-in-RDF doc forward to Rec (in the light of our tight schedule and other things on our plate, that seems preferable)
>> - if I understood Sandro correctly, when the Second Edition for XSD comes out, we will anyways need to do an update/erratum for some RIF documents, including [1], where 
>>  we can include a mention of the SPARQL Entailment Regimes document and rif:usedWithProfile.
>> 
> 
> Just trying to explore this space, not trying to be difficult...
> 
> I am not sure I understand, however; I seem to miss something here. How does this relate to RIF-in-RDF?

history:

- we tried to get this into "RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility" first, but it was too late at that time in the process of RIF.
- then it emerged into the RIF-in-RDF document, which, however from RIF's point of view will only go to Note status at max.
- there were some discussions whether we as SPARQL could complete that spec and take it to Rec, but that appeared too much on our own plate, ie adding 
  another rec track document, so we decided to leave it in the entailment regimes doc. 

that's the current status.


> Your small spec does not seem to depend on it, other than referring to that as one possibility (which can be done non-normatively). It refers to RIF-and-RDF which is closed and published.

yes, "RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility"  although it would be IMO a better place can't really be touched without the RIF WG anymore, so that option is out, yes.

> Ie, I do not see the dependency issue.

no real dependency other than what I put now in the sparql doc is a stripped down version to what we had in the editor's draft of RIF-in-RDF, see 
  http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_In_RDF#Importing_RIF_into_RDF

Axel


> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> Axel
>> 
>> 1. RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
>> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf/
>> 
>> On 13 Dec 2010, at 05:41, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 17:18 , Polleres, Axel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi ivan,
>>>> 
>>>> This document would be the note by rif, but rif will not bring it to rec anymore. Thus, sandro and I decided to move the definition to the sparql doc, since we can't reference a non-rec document normatively.
>>> 
>>> I understand the RIF WG situation. Ie, the decision to put it into the SPARQL document is procedurally a possibility. The possibility I was wondering abot is that the SPARQL WG put this note as a REC separately and then the entailment document would refer to it.
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Axel
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>>>> To: Polleres, Axel
>>>> Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>>>> Sent: Sun Dec 12 11:13:19 2010
>>>> Subject: Re: Importing RIF
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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 Monday, 13 December 2010 13:28:36 GMT

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