Re: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion

On 14 Apr 2009, at 09:13, Axel Polleres wrote:

> <chair-hat-off>
> Orri, all,
> I agree with the observation that full inference (even RDFS) may be  
> harmful in the context of Web data, see also [1].
> Unfortunately, I didn't manage to separate the issues on the wiki  
> yet, but I suggest, in connection with parameterized inference to  
> put the following four items to strawpoll, trying to summarize  
> Bijan's/Andy's suggestions:
> - ADVERTISE ENTAILMENT: should we work on a mechanism to specify the  
> entailment regime supported by an engine (endpoint side  
> parameterized inference, i.e. the endpoint be able to specify what  
> entailment it supports)

You mean "machine readably advertise" right? Unlike the current sitch.

> - REQUEST ENTAILMENT: should we work on a mechanism to request the  
> entailment regime in a query (query side side parameterized  
> inference, i.e. the requester be able to specify what entailment it  
> expects, Bijan seemed to have suggested that the engine may respond  
> falling back to another entailment regime,

That's one design.

> which probably should be indicated in the query response)

Probably. Though if you request only 10 response and I can give you  
tend without firing up the inference engine...

> - SUPPORTED ENTAILMENT REGIMES: should we work on defining a fixed set
>  of supported entailment regimes (suggested were: OWL RL, OWL EL,  
> OWL QL, OWL DL, "finite RDFS") plus an extensibility mechanism for  
> custom entailment regimes (Orri's mail seems to support this, i.e.  
> not all inferences wanted in all situations, suggested so far was  
> <rifruleset> but maybe even more flexibility is needed)?
> - EXTENDED DATASETS: should we work on defining an extended  
> mechanism for defining datasets that allows to merge/compose named  
> graphs? This relates to paramterized inference because you need to  
> be able to "merge" an ontology into a "named data graph" for getting  
> inferred answers.
> My strawpoll vote would be +1 for all of these, although I could  
> imagine that e.g. SUPPORTED ENTAILMENT REGIMES could go into a note  
> rather than Rec track, if that is preferred.

Well, we have support for OWL entailment. Once we have that it's just  
a matter of defining them. I don't think RDF through RIF should be  
that hard.

I'm a little reluctant to use rule sets *as* entailment regimes..I'd  
rather encourage people to support a "sensible dialect".


Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 11:13:27 UTC