Re: Various comments on SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

Dear Birte,


Sorry for not answering earlier, I'm not using this address any longer and check it sporadically.
I am very satisfied with the changes.


Best regards,
AZ



----- Mail original -----
De: "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
À: "antoine zimmermann" <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Envoyé: Mardi 20 Décembre 2011 16:31:41
Objet: Re: Various comments on SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes



Dear Antoine, 

in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jun/0009.html you expressen concerns about the fixed datatype map for the D-Entailment Regime. The WG wants to inform you that due to your and Michael Schneider's comment ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Nov/0025.html ) the WG has reconsidered the decision. The D-Entailment Regime has been changed to no longer prescribe a fixed datatype map. Instead, systems are required to provide a means to determine which datatype map they use, e.g., by stating that in the system documentation. The only requirement is that a canonical mapping must be defined, which is needed to ensure finiteness of the answers. 

The current editor's draft is available at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml 

Since we have not yet recieved a reply from you (also regarding the other requested changes, which have been addressed almost fully as requested), we would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has now been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list. 

Birte, on behalf of the SPARQL-WG 


On 15 June 2011 09:39, Antoine Zimmermann < antoine.zimmermann@deri.org > wrote: 


These are various comments (mostly editorial) about SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. Overall, I find this document very good. 

Apart from the detailed comments below, my main concerns are the following: 

A) Section 2.1 and 3.2 should be put together in a separate section. 2.1 does not belong to Section 2 "RDF entailment" and 3.2 does not belong to Section 3 "RDFS entailment". They both are applicable to any entailment regime. 

B) D-entailment is not defined as in RDF Semantics. Why? The definition does not even correspond to an OWL 2 D-entailment, nor a RIF D-entailment. 


Detailed comments: 
- At the end of the abstract, give a comprehensive list of the entailment regimes given in this document instead of "...such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc." 
- Section "Changes": 
* "forth" -> fourth 
* "has been made explicit in for each regime" -> in OR for? 
- Sec.1.1.3: 
* use a different font or face (bold, italic, etc) for variables to differentiate them from normal words (especially "I", "a", which are English words too). 
* "A triple pattern is member of the set" -> is a member 
- Sec.1.3: 
* certain well-formed of RDF graphs" -> well-formed RDF graphs 
* "to be taken to to address" -> taken to address 
- Sec.2: 
* "forth" -> fourth 
* condition (C2) is different from the condition given in Sec.2.2, where \mu(x) is replaced by sk(\mu(x)) and SG is replaced by sk(SG). Please harmonise. 
- Sec.2.1: 
* I don't see any reason why this section is in the RDF entailment regime section. It's clearly independent of the entailment regime. Even the examples inside are going beyond RDF entailment. This should be in a separate section 
* there is the following example: 
ex:s ex:p "<a/>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . 
ex:p rdfs:domain rdfs:Literal . 
I don't see why the second line was included. 
* in the last example triples: 
_:lit rdf:type rdfs:literal . 
It should read "Literal" with a capital "L". 
- In Sec.2.2: compare condition (C2) here and in the tables of the entailment regimes; 
- Sec.3.1: "Here we can to derive the" -> we can derive? 
- Sec.3.2: this has nothing to do in the section on RDFS regime. It is independent of the regime, like sec.2.1. Make a separate section, probably together with what's in Sec.2.1; 
- Sec.4: 
* "A datatype map for the D-entailment refime MUST contain at least all pairs of the form <prefix:dt,dt>, ..." -> this is different from the definition in RDF Semantics. RDF D-entailment does not require that XSDs are included in the datatype map. 
* """The set Lit(SG) is the set of all literals "xx"^^dt such that "yy"^^pdt occurs in SG, xx is the canonical representation of yy, and pdt is the primitive datatype from which dt is derived""" -> dt and pdt should be swapped. The same error occurs in Sec.5 and Sec.6. 
- Sec.4.1: 
* "e.g., integer, byte, and short all based on decimal" -> ..., and short are all based ... 
* "(from the first tripe)" -> from the first triple 
- Sec.5.2: the editorial note is correct, the example is not well chosen. Use this example instead: 
Data: ex:x owl:sameAs "5"^^xsd:decimal . 
Query: SELECT ?l WHERE { ex:x owl:differentFrom ?l .} 
- Sec.5.3: "reasoning problems in OWL under OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics are undecidable ..." -> semi decidable, which means the computation of the query results always finishes in finite time. 
- Sec.6.5.1: "OWL 2 DL can also handle ... EL and QL profiles ..." -> and RL profile too. 
- Sec.6.5.4: "OWL 2 RL defines a syntactic subset of OWL 2, which ..." -> subset of OWL 2 DL, which ... 
- Sec.7.1: Illegal Handling does not specify anything about handling illegal graphs that are syntactically correct. 
- Sec.7.3: the sentence "The ex:hasHospitalization ... with the events.", though grammatically correct, is very convoluted and hardly readable. Please rephrase it. 
- Sec.8: "For an example, we consider a data set with consists of an empty ..." -> For example, we consider a data set which consists ... 
- References: 
* the W3C ref should have a link to the current version, not the latest which may be different from what is used by the SPARQL spec. 
* why is "OWL 2 Profiles" not normative? 
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann 
Researcher at: 
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information 
Database Group 
7 Avenue Jean Capelle 
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex 
France 
Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13 
Lecturer at: 
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 
20 Avenue Albert Einstein 
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex 
France 
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon. fr 
http://zimmer. aprilfoolsreview.com/ 




-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 
Department of Computer Science 
University of Oxford 
Parks Road 
Oxford 
OX1 3QD 
United Kingdom 
+44 (0)1865 283520

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 09:18:48 UTC