W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Sloppy inference rules

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:18:48 +0100
Message-ID: <50924C88.4030909@emse.fr>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>, 'Pat Hayes' <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'Guus Schreiber' <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 01/11/2012 10:50, Markus Lanthaler a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:56 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>> As Antoine notes, the OWL 2 group has faced the same issue for OWL 2
>> RL. I do not see any problem doing that in this case either. I do not
>> think we should reopen, at this point, the bnode-in-predicate and
>> literal-in-subject issue and, with this, using this 'generalized
>> triples for the rules' seems to be the clean approach...
>
> Honestly it sounds a bit strange to me to simply accept that there is a
> fundamental problem without trying to address it - especially considering
> that the problem has been known since at least 2005 (2002?).

What problem are you referring to? We know well since 2005, or maybe 
earlier, that the rules are not complete. We will fix it.

The bnode-in-predicate and literal-in-subject issues are not problems, 
they are simply decisions to restrict the language. We simply will rely 
on a more general notion of triples for the rules because the rules are 
not describing the language, neither in its syntax nor in its semantics. 
It's simply exemplifying a possible implementation of a reasoner, and 
implementations are free to use any structure internally, including 
generalised triples.


> The other thing that worries me even more is the fact that a number of RDF
> serialization formats are in the process of being standardized right now. At
> least JSON-LD doesn't have this artificial restriction but that was heavily
> criticized by the RDF WG and, as it seems at the moment, we will have to
> introduce it.

We have accepted at the F2F that JSON-LD is able to do more than just 
RDF graphs and as far as the persons present at the meeting are 
concerned, it seemed to be ok for the WG members. So I don't see a big 
issue here.


> I think there won't be a better point in time to fix this once for all.

If by "fix this" you mean allowing bnode in predicate or literal in 
subject, then this will not happen during the life time of this WG as it 
is explicitly excluded by our charter.

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 10:20:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT