- From: Marcelo Arenas <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:28:55 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > On 3/21/2010 8:26 PM, Juan Sequeda wrote: >> >> Hi Everybody, >> >> There has been no discussion at all on the list, and that honestly >> worries me. > > I share this concern, which is one reason that I decided to join the group > and try to add what I can. > >> I know that we need to have a Use Case documents, but it is not >> completely clear to me what else we need to turn in and by when. >> >> One issue that I personally feel than needs to be settled is the >> semantics of the language. One we have this defined, it is just a matter >> of deciding on what is the syntax. I don't think we have made much >> progress on this issue. I have proposed to develop the semantics of the >> mapping language in datalog. I'd be up for working on this in >> conjunction with Marcelo Arenas and Dan Miranker. > > Ideally, I'd hope that the semantics of the language follow from the > requirements which follow from the use cases. > > As far as datalog, I know next to nothing about it, so my questions are > probably naive. Is there a datalog standard that we will be able to > normatively reference if the semantics of the language are given in datalog? Yes, there is a standard semantics for datalog with safe negation (which is the form of negation that we need here). We will probably need to extend datalog with some built-in predicates (like bound), but there is also a standard way to include this type of built-in predicates in datalog. All the best, Marcelo
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 08:29:28 UTC