- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:59:37 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
[snip] > http://www.w3.org/2007/rif-import-profile#RDFS > Ordo you mean to just use the names such as RDFS, Simple, OWL-DL? I meant http://something/Simple etc, where something is not specific to RIF. > I think we should have full URIs to identify those, what speaks against > reusing the RIF ones? Well, I find it confusing to call a SPARQL entailment regime rif-import-profile, but it would not kill me if we were to use them, just I find it not clear. > At least, it might be nice to have them aligned (I am afraid at this stage > it might be > tricky to change them on the RIF side, would need to check, what's the > opinion on that side as well) http://www.w3.org/2007/entailment#RDFS would be less RIF specific, but since RIF is now (candidate?) rec, it might be too late. Birte > best, > Axel > > That's fine for me. > Birte > >> best, >> Axel >> >> On 8 Oct 2009, at 14:05, Axel Polleres wrote: >> >>>> > It also raises an issue on the RIF side. RIF rules cannot be expressed >>>> > in >>>> > RDF. How would one add RIF rules to an entailement regime if we wanted >>>> > to >>>> > cover RIF? It might be a showstopper for that case:-( >>>> >>>> In my total RIF naivity, I would assume you can say: >>>> >>>> SELECT ?o FROM <http://example.org/myrules.rif> WHERE { :s :p ?o . } >>>> >>> >>> I was thinking that one viable alternative would be viewing RIF rulesets >>> rather at the >>> level of *defining* an entailment regimes in their own right, >>> thus having them more at the level of service descriptions... >>> >>> So, one could define say in SD >>> >>> myEndpoint sd:EntailmentRegime sd:rdfs . >>> >>> myEndpoint sd:EntailmentRegime sd:owl . >>> >>> or, alternatively: >>> >>> myEndpoint sd:EntailmentRegime >>> <http://example.org/myCustomEntailmentRules.rif> >>> >>> where <http://example.org/myCustomEntailmentRules.rif> points to a RIF >>> ruleset, describing the supported entailment rules. >>> >>> Alternatively, we could also allow to use >>> >>> owl:imports to refer to RIF rulesets (just as RIF allows in its own >>> imports directive to refer to OWL ontologies, cf. [1] >>> >>> Axel >>> >>> 1. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Importing_RDF_and_OWL_in_RIF >>> >>> >>> On 8 Oct 2009, at 11:34, Birte Glimm wrote: >>> >>>> 2009/10/8 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: >>>> > >>>> > Axel Polleres wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >> +1 to keep entailments local to the separate graphs in the DS >>>> >> (<chairhatoff> although I personally consider it a drawback that >>>> >> you >>>> >> can't refer to ontologies from named graphs) >>>> > >>>> > Hm. Yes, this seems to be a consequence which is a bit disagreeable >>>> > indeed:-( >>>> > >>>> > In OWL, I can of course use owl:import in my WHERE clause (Birte, this >>>> > is >>>> > all right, isn't it?) which is not that bad, the user has to make >>>> > things >>>> > explicit. But this does not help the RDFS case. >>>> >>>> In OWL you can use imports, but I suppose you mean FROM and not WHERE >>>> clause. If the ontology you are querying (as given in the FROM (NAMED) >>>> clause) contains imports, then all imports will be loaded and the >>>> axioms from the imported ontologies will be taken into account for >>>> finding the query answers. >>>> >>>> > It also raises an issue on the RIF side. RIF rules cannot be expressed >>>> > in >>>> > RDF. How would one add RIF rules to an entailement regime if we wanted >>>> > to >>>> > cover RIF? It might be a showstopper for that case:-( >>>> >>>> In my total RIF naivity, I would assume you can say: >>>> >>>> SELECT ?o FROM <http://example.org/myrules.rif> WHERE { :s :p ?o . } >>>> >>>> Here I assume that myrules.rif contains the rules and references >>>> (imports) for the relevant RDF graphs. In the RIF OWL compatibility >>>> doc it says: >>>> >>>> A RIF document that refers to (imports) RDF graphs and/or RDFS/OWL >>>> ontologies, or any use of a RIF document with RDF graphs, is viewed as >>>> a combination of a document and a number of graphs and ontologies. >>>> This document specifies how, in such a combination, the document and >>>> the graphs and ontologies interoperate in a technical sense, i.e., the >>>> conditions under which the combination is satisfiable (i.e., >>>> consistent), as well as the entailments (i.e., logical consequences) >>>> of the combination. The interaction between RIF and RDF/OWL is >>>> realized by connecting the model theory of RIF [RIF-BLD] with the >>>> model theories of RDF [RDF-Semantics] and OWL [OWL2-Semantics], >>>> respectively. >>>> >>>> In my example, I assume that myrules.rif is such a document as >>>> mentioned above and you would query the RDF graphs pls the entailmens >>>> that you get from the rules. >>>> >>>> Birte >>>> >>>> > Ivan >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>>> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> > mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>>> > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 >>>> Computing Laboratory >>>> Parks Road >>>> Oxford >>>> OX1 3QD >>>> United Kingdom >>>> +44 (0)1865 283529 >>>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 > Computing Laboratory > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283529 > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 14:00:13 UTC