Re: [TF-ENT] Entailment Regimes telecon

Birte Glimm wrote:
> Ups, sorry to hear that. Germans like to plan far ahead ;-)

:-) So do the Dutch, pity I only live here:-)

No problems. We had a bit of a chat with Andy...

I.


> Birte
> 
> 2009/11/6 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>> Ouch. I did not realize we talk about November 13, ie, next week, and
>> neither did Andy. We were both on the call, but for no avail..
>>
>> Oh well. See you next week:-)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Birte Glimm wrote:
>>> 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
>>> ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql-ent])
>>>        • Duration: 60 minutes
>>>
>>> Birte
>>>
>>> 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
>>> SPARQL.
>>>
>>>     * [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
>>> doc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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