W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

[RDF Compatibility] RIF & RDF compatibility

From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:43:29 +0100
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1136360609.8783.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>
[I moved this discussion to the RIF list, where is belongs]

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 01:05 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> In the document <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/ 
> RDF_Compatibility>, section "Blank nodes as assertions", please add  
> at the end a reference to the Use Case "Managing incomplete  
> information" <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/ 
> Managing_incomplete_information>, section "9.4. (Rules involving  
> generation of unknown)", where we show two critical examples of  
> having existential variables in the head of rules.

Seems reasonable. It's a wiki page, so everyone can edit it :)

> In "Approaches to Compatibility", section "Viewing an RDF(S) graph as  
> a fact base", it is not clear how this could be a reasonable  
> approach, since it says something only about the input rdf data (the  
> "easy" part) but nothing about bnodes or RDF vocabulary appearing in  
> the (head of the) rules.

If it is a requirement that bnodes or RDF vocabulary appear in the head
of a rule, this approach is indeed not reasonable.
However, it is not clear whether this is a requirement at all.

I guess this is for the working group to decide. However, having bnodes
and RDF vocabulary in the head introduces a lot of hassle, as introduced
at the top of the wiki page.

Best, Jos

> cheers
> --e.
Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
+43 512 507 6475         jos.debruijn@deri.org

DERI                      http://www.deri.org/
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you
looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.
  - Poul Anderson

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 07:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:36 UTC