- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:25:34 +0000
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> I've expressed interest in the past in helping here and I do know/care about > the intersection (personally in the research I do and in how we use SPARQL > at the workplace). Chime, if you want to co-edit that section I am happy to introduce you to how I handle the problematic cases for RDF(S) and OWL so far. >> Can someone here make the case for why RIF folks should care about this? >> I tried to get interest from the RIF-WG, but I don't think I explained >> it very well. > > I believe the case is straight forward, but maybe I'm mistaken. Any > entailment mechanism for RDF is really only as useful (to the developer > anyways) as it is easy to incorporate into existing tools. It seems a bit > of a waste to have a way to specify your semantics on the one hand and to > not have a standard way to incorporate them into the standard querying > interface for RDF (SPARQL). This was one of the major motivations behind > SPARQL-DL. I would think RIF folks would be interested in further > integrating RIF into the SW specifications so it can be used with ease and > in a practical way (rather than relying on two separate subsystems: SPARQL > over fully-entailed graphs and a RIF processor). Otherwise, you run the > risk of having a nice way to specify rule-based semantics that is an island > onto itself in the SW technology stack. > >> The general idea, I gather, is to be able to do SPARQL queries against a >> RIF-powered deductive triple store. But I don't understand what needs >> to be spec'd for that; it seems to me like the parts fit together in >> exactly one obvious way. > > I still think if we settle on a lowest common denominator (a safe RIF > profile such as RIF Core - whose entailment relationship should coincide > with that of OWL2) to start with, the current framework in the entailment > specification can be re-used for the most part in a straightforward way. It is probably really straightforward, I just don't know RIF enough to judge this. OWL Direct Semantics is certainly a bit different and even OWL RDF-Based semantics introduces a view more pitfalls (infinite answers from owl:TopDataProperty for example). For OWL I am confident that I can define these and handle them appropriately. For RIF I would consider it a bit risky because I might easily miss some corner cases. Birte > -- Chime > > > =================================== > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail > > Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals > in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009). > Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for > a complete listing of our services, staff and > locations. > > > Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use > only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed > and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable > law. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If > you have received this communication in error, please > contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in > its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you. > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 15:26:13 UTC