Entailment regimes open issues

Hi all,
for the entailment regimes we still have some open issues, but we
discussed them in the entailment regimes teleconf on 13 Nov 2009 and I
believe most can be closed.

[ISSUE 28]: Entailment regimes vs. update?

Section 9 of the entailment doc addresses this. The section says that
systems that do use an entailment regime other than simple entailment
can support update queries, but they don't have to. If they do support
update queries, then the exact behavior is not covered by the spec and
implementers can describe the system behavior in the system's

I believe the issue can be closed.

[ISSUE 34]: How do entailment regimes interaction with aggregates,
grouping, and blank nodes?

This was initially unclear because we were not sure how blank nodes
would be handled. Since it s now clear that only blank nodes from the
originally queried graph can be returned as answers (they are
implicitly skolemized), the spec now clearly defines how counting,
aggregates, and grouping works.

I believe this issue can be closed.

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

same as Issue 28 above

[ISSUE 42]: TF-ENT What should happen for RDFS entailment in the face
of inconsistencies?

The current spec says that systems MAY raise an error and SHOULD do so
if they encounter an inconsistency. Users cannot force a consistency

[ISSUE 43]: should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole
dataset or individual graphs?

This issue relates mainly to service descriptions. At the moment SDs
cannot describe endpoints that have some graphs with inferences and
some graphs without. Such configurations will occur, but maybe it is
just not part of SDs for now.

If we agree that entailment regimes are per end-point for SPARQL 1.1,
we can close this issue.


Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529

Received on Sunday, 7 February 2010 13:44:00 UTC