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

Re: SPARQL TC 2011-05-03 Agenda

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:22:45 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTineTrQXizwF0-Y+OeOXqJouuHyXDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Axel,
I've made all the changes:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/gen.html
Thanks,
Birte

On 3 May 2011 11:57, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> minor comments:
>
> 1) Figure1 misses an rdfs:range label and I think the edge should be orange?
> 2) the new Figure 2 looks good to me
> 3) The additional example in the property paths section is good. I would explicitly mark where you start talking about limitations and sugggest to add a sentence along the lines that this may be superseeded by future standards i nthe end of the section.
>   E.g.
>
> "
> Since property paths are evaluated without entailment, the evaluation under an entailment regime can yield counter-intuitive results.
> [...]
> Although the data contains ex:b ex:p2 ex:c and ex:p2 rdfs:subPropertyOf ex:p3, which under RDFS entailment implies ex:b ex:p3 ex:c, this fact is not used since the arbitrary length path expression ex:p+ is evaluated with simple entailment, i.e., via subgraph matching on the input data.
>
> Since property path evaluation works directly on the active graph, the OWL Direct Semantics entailment regime is unlikely to support queries where the query pattern contains path expressions since systems that apply the Direct Semantics of OWL do not work with the graph directly, but translate the triples into OWL structural objects. Combining the other entailment regimes with property path expressions is, however, relatively straightforward.
> "
>
> -->
>
> "
> <h3><a name="PropertyPathsLimitations" id="PropertyPathsLimitations"></a>9.1 Limitations of Property paths in combination with Entailment</h3>
> Since property paths are evaluated without entailment, the evaluation under an entailment regime can yield counter-intuitive results.
> [...]
> Although the data contains ex:b ex:p2 ex:c and ex:p2 rdfs:subPropertyOf ex:p3, which under RDFS entailment implies ex:b ex:p3 ex:c, this fact is not used in the since the arbitrary length path expression ex:p+ is evaluated via subgraph matching on the input data, i.e., with simple entailment.
>
> Since property path evaluation works directly on the active graph, the OWL Direct Semantics entailment regime is unlikely to support queries where the query pattern contains path expressions since systems that apply the Direct Semantics of OWL do not work with the graph directly, but translate the triples into OWL structural objects. Combining the other entailment regimes with property path expressions is, however, relatively straightforward.</p>
>
> <p><br/>Future versions of SPARQL may define further extensions to the handling of PropertyPaths together with Entailment or new entailment regimes that handle Property Paths in a specific way, which is why the present section is kept informative.</p>
> "
>
> Would that sound ok to you?
> With that minor change, I'd be happy to publish from my side.
>
> Axel
>
> On 3 May 2011, at 11:34, Birte Glimm wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2011 15:28, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > I will hopefully upload a formal agenda hopefully later today at the usual place:
>> >   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-05-03
>> >
>> > but here is alrady what is planned for tomorrow:
>> >
>> > We shall go through all documents:
>> >
>> >   1) check with editors whether ready for LC publication
>> >        - any open issues on to_last_call wiki?
>>
>> I updated the page with links to reviews and response. There are still
>> some discussions about the (informal) property path section...
>>
>> >        - any critical reviewer comments open?
>>
>> Not to the best of my knowledge.
>>
>> >        - any critical comments-list comments open?
>> Not to the best of my knowledge.
>> >        - pubrules check done?
>> I have some (I think minor) prolems as outlines in my email to the
>> heads-up email.
>>
>> Birte
>>
>> >   2) PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft
>> >        (we need a formal vote there, I assume for minor open issues, this can also vary to)
>> >      PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft modulo ACTION-XYZ
>> >        (i.e. allow us to assign actions to reviewers/editors to resolve minor issues bilaterally without the need for another formal group decision)
>> >
>> > If editors could answer to the subitems of 1)  prior to the call tomorrow, that might help us!
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Axel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
>> Computing Laboratory
>> Parks Road
>> Oxford
>> OX1 3QD
>> United Kingdom
>> +44 (0)1865 283520
>>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 13:23:13 GMT

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