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

Re: [TF-ENT] Entailment Regimes telecon today

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:39:03 -0500
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24947.1258119543@waldron>
> Hi all,
> just a quick reminder that the entailment regimes telecon is today
> 14.00 UK time. It would be great to have as many participants as
> possible.
> We'll use IRC channel sparql-ent to set up an ad-hoc call and mainly
> go through the open issues that touch entailment regimes, see list
> below.
> Birte
> Issues to discuss:
>    * [ISSUE 28]: Entailment regimes vs. update?
>    * [ISSUE 34]: How do entailment regimes interaction with
>    * [ISSUE 40]: How can other entailment regimes plug in their
>    * [ISSUE 42]: TF-ENT What should happen for RDFS entailment in the
>    * [ISSUE 43]: should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole

Two others that have occured to me, perhaps not listed here:

   - How do we interact with inference which is not technically
     entailmented (eg RIF PRD).  Perhaps entailment is the wrong term,
     perhaps we don't mind misusing it, or perhaps we can just use some
     glue language like "for the purposes of this specification,
     entailment-like relationships can be considered entailment
     relationships."  (I understand that technically speaking,
     "entailment" only applies in logics with a model theory, and RIF
     PRD has only procedural semantics.)

   - How do we handle non-monotonic inference/entailment?  (Including
     both RIF PRD and anticipated RIF dialects with default negation.)
     This probably affects issue-43.

Not sure if we'll have time to talk about them today, but I wanted to
put them on the table while I was thinking about them.

    -- Snadro

Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 13:39:05 UTC

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