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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-106 (concepts-and-semantics): Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [RDF Concepts]

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:28:30 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <69F28911-F811-4419-96F3-AF2BB7B3C642@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 7 Nov 2012, at 16:58, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> * At least an informative definition of “entailment regime”?
> 
> I am not sure. Just refer

Refer to what? :-)

RDF Semantics doesn't define the term; AFAIK it has been introduced for the SPARQL spec of that name. I'm not sure if there is a term in Semantics that directly maps to “entailment regime”. It seems to be a useful term though.

>> * Informative entailment rules?
> 
> I am not sure. Just refer to the document-to-come
> 
> (I am not sure what you meant by 'informative entailment rules', though; is it just to say what they are, or give some explicit rule examples?)

Not sure either.

So I understand that Pat will provide an updated version of the entailment rules. With generalized RDF graphs, the modified literal design, optionalized rdf:XMLLiteral, and perhaps the LV-entailment separated out into separate rules.

Once we have that, maybe we should group the rules according to whether they affect the general data model (blank nodes, typed literals) or the RDF/RDFS vocabulary (the RDFS entailment stuff).

And then see if we can move the data model rules into an informative section of RDF Concepts, and the RDFS rules into RDF Schema.

This may not work for all sorts of reasons, and it's probably too soon to even talk about it, but if it works, then we can get away with one less document, and with the rules closer to the place where people are likely to look for them.

Best,
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 17:28:56 GMT

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