- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:05:38 -0800
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
AFAIK, the intersection of RIF and OWL regarding datatypes is RIF. HTH, Axel On 1 Nov 2009, at 07:31, Ivan Herman wrote: > (I explicitly cc Axel here to put on his RIF WG member hat...) > > Hm. I must admit I did not really look into this, I simply took the > terms used in the RDF Semantics document; more exactly, took over the > URI-s RIF already uses. And you are right, this is not clear.... > > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On 1 Nov 2009, at 10:57, Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>> Birte, >>> >>> I was not at the call, sorry about that. >>> >>> What I try to propose to the SW Coordination Group is the >>> following set >>> of URI-s >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/Simple >>> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDF >>> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RDFS >>> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/D >> >> I'm sorry that I seem to be missing something, but what does D >> indicate >> exactly? The ambiguity that concerns me is that it could indicate >> that >> the system respects the semantics of "datatypes in general" or of a >> specific set of datatypes. >> >> I presume it's the latter and the requisite datatype map is from: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp >> ? >> >> But that's not very well specified. It would be better to use the OWL >> 2/RIF specs, I think, or some subset thereof. (E.g., we shouldn't >> leave >> open whether float and integer are disjoint.) >> > > Sigh:-) > > I would probably take the intersection of the OWL and RIF. Ie, leave > out > owl:float and rif:local or rif:iri. Alternatively, we may restrict > ourselves to what SPARQL defines as operand data types (11.1 in the > current spec). > > Looking at the RIF document > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ > > RIF uses this URI to identify the common RIF-D model which... seems to > leave the concrete datatype map open. > >> (I wonder whether using "D" is the best thing to do here. The term >> "D-entailment" is pretty obscure as far as I can tell. And, in this >> case, would it also entail RDF semantics? RDFS? Do we really need >> RDF?) >> > > The RIF document says: > > [[[ > The profiles are ordered as follows, where '<' reads "is lower than": > > Simple < RDF < RDFS < D < OWL Full > > OWL DL < OWL Full > ]]] > > where 'profiles' means (just to muddy the waters:-) the RIF profiles. > > The ordering makes sense but it is more than what the RDF Semantics > seems to say for D. Axel, can you try to remember the reasoning > behind this? > > If we want some sort of a compatibility (that is how the whole > discussion on having separate and general URI-s for these started!) > then > we might want to take that over. It makes sense. > > Whether SPARQL really needs a separate RDF entailment here is a > different question... I am not sure (but the URI would still exist) > > Cheers > > I. > > > > >> Cheers, >> Bijan. > > -- > > 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
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 16:06:16 UTC