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

Re: Review: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:13:47 +0200
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>
Message-Id: <00D17608-B80F-4635-9086-E459D0B58663@inf.unibz.it>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I like your proposal, thanks.
--e.

On 5 Apr 2011, at 16:43, Birte Glimm wrote:

> 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 15:14:16 GMT

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