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

Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:18:43 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B45091A1-2291-4D6D-A7C9-16B30221E094@cyganiak.de>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:11, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> ISSUE-84: "Bug" in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form

Okay, but this is at best a bug in RDF Semantics and orthogonal to dataset semantics.

> DD1. You say:
> 
> """Under OWL dataset semantics:
> 
> {}
> :g1 { :o1 owl:differentFrom :o1 }
> 
> is a contradiction."""
> 
> No, it's OWL-dataset-consistent, but it entails:
> 
> :g1 { G }
> 
> for any RDF graph G.

Right, my bad. I've removed the DD1 test cases, as they don't illustrate the issue at hand particularly well anyway.

> DD3.  We can mention the SPARQL 1.1 Service description vocabulary, and give an example using it:
> 
> <>  a  sd:Dataset;
>    sd:defaultEntailmentRegime  er:rdf
>    sd:namedGraph  [
>       a  sd:NamedGraph;
>       sd:name  "http://example.com/g"^^xsd:anyURI;
>       sd:entailmentRegime  er:simple
>    ]
> 
> 
> This does not work perfectly since sd:defaultEntailmentRegime normally apply to a sd:Service rather than a sd:Dataset. Yet, it is not formally said that sd:Dataset is disjoint with sd:Service.

I added this example to DD3.

Best,
Richard




> 
> 
> DD4 to DD7: alright.
> 
> 
> 
> --AZ
> 
> Le 11/09/2012 11:46, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
>> On 10 Sep 2012, at 17:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>> Two other things that I'd quite like to see before we can call the proposal complete:
>>> 
>>> 1. Some thinking on how it addresses our graph use cases. (Do we have an “official” list of those? I've lost track with all the various documents.)
>>> 
>>> 2. Some examples for semantic extensions, in order to show that various other proposed semantics can actually be done as proper semantic extensions of this minimal dataset semantics.
>> 
>> I've worked a bit on this item and made attempts to formalize three semantic extensions:
>> 
>> * owl:imports (formally explains how owl:imports works in RDF datasets)
>> * web datasets (formally defines that stuff published on the web is asserted)
>> * direct graph semantics (permits "literal" immutable graphs)
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics#Possible_Semantic_Extensions
>> 
>> I'm not proposing that we should standardize any of this; the intention is merely to explore how flexible/extensible the semantics proposed on that page is.
>> 
>> Again, I'm not really good at this formal semantics stuff, so this might all be spectacularly wrong.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 83 36
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 17:19:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT