- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:49:50 +0100
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B17FA3E.6030606@w3.org>
Birte Glimm wrote: > [snip] >>> O.k., let us see how this goes... Personally, I think that adding some >>> simple vocabulary would be good. Something like >>> >>> sd:possibleEntailmentRegime <URI-FOR-Direct-Semantics>, <URI-FOR-SIMPLE>; >>> sd:possibleEntailmentProfile <URI-FOR-DL>, <URI-FOR-QL>. >> I assume these together would replace the current sd:supportedEntailment property? Also, I know there had >> been some brief discussion of the difference between hanging these properties off of the service and off of >> specific graph descriptions (for cases where different entailment applies to different graphs in the dataset). >> Would these continue to be terms with sd:Service as the domain? > > I think it would be good to declare a default entailment regime that > will be applied to all graphs that have no special/different > description for the used entailment regime, e.g., > sd:supportedEntailment becomes something like sd:DefaultEntailmentRegime > > This should still be part of the service description. Optionally, the > system can describe (again part of service) that it only accepts > certain inputs since OWL Direct Semantics is only specified for RDF > documents that satisfy the restrictions for OWL DL. Systems that > implement only the OWL EL or QL profile have even stronger > restrictions, E.g., > sd:supportedEntailmentProfile <URI-FOR-DL>, <URI-FOR-EL>, <URI-FOR-QL>. > or > sd:supportedEntailmentProfile <URI-FOR-QL>. > The URIs for the possible profile restrictions would then be described > in the Instances section I think, maybe they can be instances of > sd:EntailmentProfile. OWL Profiles that describe/impose restrictions > on what is well-formed RDF for the profile are OWL DL, OWL EL, and OWL > QL. Systems that do not use OWL Direct Semantics should not make any > restriction on the input. If a system supports the OWL DL profile, it > also supports OWL EL and OWL QL. It it supports OWL EL, it also > supports OWL QL. It is probably clearer for users if systems always > state all supported profiles although it can be inferred that OWL DL > systems can handle also EL and QL etc. If a system does not specify > anything for this property, it can be assumed that all valid RDF > documents are accepted as input. Just on a very technical and minor note: after discussions with the SW CG, there are common URI-s now for the entailment regimes, see http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/ I would be happy to set up a similar set of generic URI-s for the profiles (including DL). Ivan > >> I feel a bit out of my depths with respect to some of the entailment work, but these seem like reasonable things to >> add to the service description vocabulary. With either these new terms or the existing sd:supportedEntailment term, >> though, I wonder what I'm supposed to do with this information if I get back multiple values for the possible regimes? >> I don't currently do a lot of work with reasoning systems, but without a way to request a specific entailment regime >> for a query, having multiple values for sd:possibleEntailmentRegime seems almost as bad as having zero values >> as far as the end user is concerned. Is this relevant for anybody's use cases? There's obviously a lot of potential >> complexity here, but having a useful solution for simple cases would be nice. > > I completely agree. Just stating several possible regimes alone does > not help much since then some form of negotiation would be required > for the client to ask the server to use a certain regime for the query > or for all queries of that user. I would like to keep it simple for > now and suggest that a system declares one default entailment regime. > If the system uses other regimes for some graphs in the dataset, then > this can be described in the dataset description/as part of the graph > description, but again, one entailment regime per graph. This means > that the user cannot ask the endpoint to use a certain entailment > regime. Systems say what they do by default or for certain graphs and > that is it. It would be nice if a system could offer the same graph > once with simple and once with RDFS entailment, for example. I am not > sure whether this is possible if the graphs have the same URI/IRI. > E.g., lets assume my system uses by default simple entailment, but I > have a named graph with IRI http://example.com/myExampleForRDFS.rdf > for which the system will use the RDFS entailment regime when > answering queries. Here is my attempt of describing this: > > @prefix : <http://www.example.com/> > @prefix sd: <http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#> > :myService a sd:Service . > :myService sd:url :SPARQL . > :myService sd:DefaultEntailmentRegime <URIForSimpleEntailment> . > <URIForSimpleEntailment> a sd:EntailmentRegime . > :myService sd:defaultDataset :myDatatset . > :myDataset a sd:Dataset . > :myDataset sd:defaultGraph :myDefaultGraph.rdf . > :myDataset sd:namedGraph :myNamedGraph1.rdf . > :myDataset sd:namedGraph :myExampleForRDFS.rdf . > :myExampleForRDFS.rdf sd:entailmentRegime <URIForRDFSEntailment> . > > Here only the named graph with IRI :myExampleForRDFS.rdf uses the RDFS > entailment regime. Since nothing was specified for :myNamedGraph1.rdf, > this named graph uses the default simple entailment. I make another > attempt to describe my OWL EL SPARQL endpoint: > > @prefix : <http://www.example.com/> > @prefix sd: <http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#> > :myService a sd:Service . > :myService sd:url :SPARQL-OWL-EL . > :myService sd:DefaultEntailmentRegime <URIForDirectSemantics> . > <URIForDirectSemantics> a sd:EntailmentRegime . > :myService sd:supportedEntailmentProfile <URI-FOR-EL>. > <URI-FOR-EL> a sd:entailmentProfile . > :myService sd:defaultDataset :myDatatset . > :myDataset a sd:Dataset . > :myDataset sd:defaultGraph :myDefaultGraph.rdf . > :myDataset sd:namedGraph :myNamedGraph1.rdf . > > I hope that clarifies a bit whatI have in mind. I think this will also > satisfy what Andy had in mind (Andy?). > Birte > >> .greg >> >> > > > -- 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 Thursday, 3 December 2009 17:50:20 UTC