Re: [TF-ENT] URIs for entailment regimes in service descriptions

> AFAIK, the intersection of RIF and OWL regarding datatypes is RIF.

Indeed.  We caught Ivan in the well-laid trap: he misunderstook
rif:local and rif:iri as datatypes, but they are actually "symbol
spaces", much closer to elements of the syntax than datatypes.

    -- Sandro


> 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 16:09:09 UTC