Re: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion

Le 14 avr. 09 à 14:04, Chimezie Ogbuji a écrit :

> On 4/14/09 7:12 AM, "Bijan Parsia" <>  
> wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2009, at 09:13, Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> 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.
> +1 to machine readability of supported ENTAILMENT

+1, it would also nicely fit into the ServiceDescription feature [1]  
with a dedicated property (as done with saddle:sparqlExtension),  
especially if a set of entailment regimes (with dedicated URIs) are  



>>> - 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.
> So, is this a switch that indicates whether the parameterized  
> inference
> included in the query behaves like content negotiation for additional
> answers *or* a demand that the answers must be given in light of the
> specified entailment regime?
>>> 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".
> You don't consider a RIF-RDF combination to be a sensible dialect? It
> provides an entailment relation, a notion of well-formedness,  
> satisfaction,
> and the possibility of guaranteeing finite additional answers; all  
> of which
> contribute to defining an entailment regime.  Did you mean rule sets
> expressed in dialects other than RIF?
> -- Chimezie
> ===================================
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).
> Visit us online at for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.

Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <> .

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 13:10:45 UTC