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

Re: Comment responses for MS-[2-7]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:21:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4EB41F20.20708@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

I've reviewed the responses as best I can (apologies - I've not had the 
time for the entailment spec as I would have liked).

I believe you had addressed all of Michael's points that he raised and 
that the responses reflect the WG position.

The responses are good to go


On 01/11/11 16:04, Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> after today's teleconf, I've spend some time to finish the replies to
> Michael's comments. I would be grateful if you could support the
> response, so that I can mail out the replies. The biggest change is
> from MS-6 as detailed below.
> Birte
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-2
> - Comment about higher order semantics, reply that higher order
> reasoning is not required.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-3
> - Comment that we should have different restriction for the queried
> graph and the pattern, which we have in fact. A clearer distinction is
> not foreseen by the BGP extension point condition.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-4
> - Comment that error handling should be weakend to SHOULD, but I want
> to stay consistent with SPARQL Query, so left as is. Only for OWL
> Direct Semantics the exception that triples that violate OWL DL
> constraints can be omitted is dropped.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-5
> - Suggestion that inconsistent graphs should not be handled in the
> spec, but that is required by the BGP matching extension point
> conditions.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-6
> - D-Entailment has no fixed datatype map, so if we have one, it's not
> D-entailment. Since also Antoine Zimmermann was not too happy with the
> datatype map, I now dropped that. Systems have to specify, e.g., in
> their documentation, what datatype map they use, but D-entailment no
> longer prescribes a fixed datatype map.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:MS-7
> Clarification of an example for which I had a question in an editorial
> note. Example is anyway simplified now.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 17:24:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:05 UTC