- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:29:54 +0200 (MEST)
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
3C SPARQL WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> Subject: Re: [ENT] Review comments on the SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime document Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:29:54 +0200 Message-ID: <vM1p4R8WR81r.zMHHbjCk@authsmtp.vodafone.nl> X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: i-default Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -original message- Subject: Re: [ENT] Review comments on the SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime = document From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Date: 2010-05-18 05:54 > > On 5/12/10 11:04 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> ----------- > >> Section 7 > >>=3D20 > >> At the moment, the http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/ vocabulary does = =3D > _not_ > >> include the > >>=3D20 > >> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF-RDF-Strongly-Safe-Core > >>=3D20 > >> but only > >>=3D20 > >> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/RIF > >>=3D20 > >> It is easy for me to add this additional URI, but I have to be sure = =3D > this is > >> o.k. with the RIF group, and whether it is the correct name. And, if = =3D > I add > >> this, shouldn't I add others? Which ones? Axel, Sandro, can you help = =3D > on that? > >=3D20 > > Ok, I'll leave that one as is until there is further input >=20 > I leave that to Axel and Sandro Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to follow this for a while. = How urgent is this? Things for me relax a little in two weeks, I think. Offhand, I'm unpleasantly surprised that anyone would want to name a subset of Core. Subsetting Core is bad for interoperability. But = maybe there are issues I'm missing. [IH] it would be good to settle this before publication. Note, however, = that the entailment URIs do not even include Core, only RIF. The message I = got was that syntax should automatically determine the level of RIF = entailment. This reminds me a bit of the difference between the various owl = profiles, and we indeed have separate uri schemes for the owl profiles. The = answer may be to define a separate set uris for rif core, rif bld rif pld, = etc, under a scheme rif-dialects/... Would that work? The fact that we refer to a subset of core that is not an official dialect = may still be an issue, though. We may refer to core only and define tha = sparql entailment so that this definition is valid for the strongly safe = subset. Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 04:43:13 UTC