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

Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:59:03 +0200
Message-ID: <504F9807.2010300@emse.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 11/09/2012 19:18, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> 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.

True. But issues are linked. Especially if you talk about the semantics 
of datasets, which contain RDF graphs and which use the semantics of 
RDF, it makes sense to highlight the issues of RDF graphs semantics too, 
IMO.


--AZ

>
>> 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/
>>
>
>


-- 
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 20:00:04 GMT

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