W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

[TF-ENT] Entailment Regimes telecon

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:20:42 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0911030920k57e09co29b05d2db6684838@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all,
since there will not be much time at the F2F to discuss entailment
regimes related issues, I got action 129 to set up a separate telecon
for the week after the F2F. We will most likely also discuss issues
also related to SD and update (see below), so if anybody else wants to
join in, it would be great.

The doodle poll suggests Friday 13th 14.00-15.00 UK time (15.00-16.00
rest of europe, I think tht is 09:00-10:00 EST, Sandro is that where
you are?). IRC channel sparql-ent.
I hope the dial in numbers are the same as usual...

       • Date of Call: Friday November 13, 2009
       • Time of Call: 14:00 UK, 09:00 (East US), 15:00 Rest of Europe
       • IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql-ent
       • Duration: 60 minutes


Issues to discuss:
    * [ISSUE 28]: Entailment regimes vs. update?
This obviously also relates to update. I am not sure it is compatible
with the conditions on extensions to BGP matching, but one way to go
would be to always apply simple entailment semantics to update
queries. That would be a bit of a burden for OWL Direct Semantics
application because you have to implement data structures to keep an
RDF graph that you use to do the updates and after each update you
have to convert from the triples into the OWL logical constructs.
Another option would be to say that update is not yet defined for use
with entailment regimes and leave that open to future versions of

    * [ISSUE 34]: How do entailment regimes interaction with
aggregates, grouping, and blank nodes?
I think that is clear now from the definition of the semantics,
although we might have to make it clearer to readers?

    * [ISSUE 40]: How can other entailment regimes plug in their
semantics to SPARQL/Update?
see issue 28

    * [ISSUE 42]: TF-ENT What should happen for RDFS entailment in the
face of inconsistencies?
Are we all happy with the current solution?

    * [ISSUE 43]: should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole
dataset or individual graphs?
This relates to service descriptions as well. Andy is in favour of
being able to declare entailment regimes per graph and I am slightly
in favour of that too. If the majority thinks so, we should probably
asks for an extension in this direction in the service description

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 17:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC