W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Review: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:43:26 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimbAgEE7319vBFzS=B9Q=wxQp8AYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "Pan, Dr Jeff Z." <jeff.z.pan@abdn.ac.uk>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Zhao, Yuting" <yuting.zhao@abdn.ac.uk>
On 5 April 2011 14:50, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2011, at 13:35, Birte Glimm wrote:
>
>> "Various W3C standards, including RDF and OWL, provide semantic
>> interpretations for RDF graphs that allow additional RDF statements to
>> be inferred from explicitly given assertions. Many applications that
>> rely on these semantics require a query language such as SPARQL, but
>> in order to use SPARQL basic graph pattern matching has to be defined
>> using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph
>> structures. "
>
> In order to clarify the possible alternative entailment regimes for the same entailment relation, I'd rather say (you may find a better formulation):
>
> "..., but in order to use SPARQL, basic graph pattern matching has to be adapted, possibly in different ways, using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph structures."

I would prefer to not discuss all issues already in the abstract and
what is written there does by no means say that there is a unique way
of using entailment relations. If you insist on having some such note
already in the abstract, I prefer an additional sentence. Your
inserted remark can IMO easily be misread as BGP matching has to be
adapted in different ways, e.g., if you want to use RDFS entailment
you have to make several adaptations to BGP matching, which is no
really what you have in mind.

Here one suggestion that doesn't try to squeeze this into the existing
sentence.
"..., but in order to use SPARQL, basic graph pattern matching has to be defined
using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph
structures.
There are different possible ways of defining a basic graph pattern matching
extension for an entailment relation. This document specifies one such
way for a
range of standard semantic web entailment relations. "

>> "An entailment regime defines not only which entailment relation is
>> used, but also which queries and graphs are well-formed for the regime
>> or what kinds of errors can arise. The entailment relations used in
>> this document are standard entailment relations in the semantic web
>> such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc."
>
> Similarly here:
>
> "An entailment regime defines not only which entailment relation is used, but also which queries and graphs are well-formed for the regime, how the entailment is used (since there are potentially different meaningful ways to use the same entailment relation) or what kinds of errors can arise. The entailment relations used in this document are standard entailment relations in the semantic web such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc."

Here I find it much better placed and I have updated the WD.

Birte

> cheers
> --e.



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 14:43:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT