Re: [TF-ENT] Agenda 24th Feb teleconf

Plan to be there.



On 2010-2-21 22:45 , Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> here is a proposal for the agenda. If you have additional suggestions
> or suggestions for amendments, let me know.
> Birte
>    *  Date of Call: Wednesday February 24, 2010
>    * Time of Call: 18:00 UK, 13:00 (East US)
>    * Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
>    * Dial-In #: + (Nice, France)
>    * Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
>    * Participant Access Code:
>      Zakim will tell us when the ad hoc conference is set up
>    * IRC Channel: port 6665 channel #sparql-ent
>      ([])
>    * Duration: 60 minutes
>    * Chair: Birte Glimm
>    * Scribe: ?
>    * Link to Agenda:
> * Admin
>   o Do we need a scribe?
> * General entailment regimes issues
>   o Should we have a finite vocabulary from which bindings can be taken
>     for all variables and not just the ones in subject position. This
>     allows for defining the scoping graph as graph equivalent to the active
>     graph even in the case of an inconsistency and would mean a modified C2
>     condition.
>     Current C2 in PWD:
>     (C2) Each variable x that occurs in the subject position of a triple in
>          BGP is such that sk(μ(x)) occurs in sk(SG).
>     Proposed C2:
>     (C2) For each variable x in V(BGP), sk(μ(x)) occurs in sk(SG) or in
>          Vocab.
>     Here vocal is defined as the reserved vocabulary for the entailment
>     regime (e.g., the RDF vocabulary for RDF entailment) minus terms of the
>     form rdf:_n with n in {1, 2, …}.
> * RIF issues
>   o Will/should RIF be marked as "at risk" depending on the RIF WG note
>     about the RIF-to-RDF mapping? What is the status of the RIF to RDF
>     mapping? Will there be something like rif:import?
>   o Entailment regimes have to define which graphs the accept. Will the RIF
>     entailment regime work with all RDF graphs? Different lists in RDF and
>     RIF?
>   o Will each rule set be an entailment regime, e.g., the SD says something
>     like: myEndpoint sd:EntailmentRegime <>?
>     Or is there a suitable RIF entailment relation (RIF+RDF semantics) and
>     one specifies a rule set in a from clause or in the data set? Which RIF
>     profiles does that cover? This might affect the condition on extensions
>     to BGP matching that requires that
>     SG E-entails (SG union P1(BGP1) union ... union Pn(BGPn))
>   o How are blank nodes defined in RIF? Will skolemization/mapping to RIF
>     local symbols work as for the other regimes?
>   o Not all RIF dialects are based on a model-theory (e.g., RIF PRD), so
>     they do not come with an entailment relation, but have a procedural
>     semantics. Can we still use the procedural semantics to define
>     something like an entailment regime?
>   o Which RIF profiles should be included? Only RIF Core? Does RIF Core
>     coincide with OWL RDF-Based or Direct Semantics? How many profiles are
>     there?
>   o What effects do the non-monotonic features of some RIF dialects have?
>     E.g., RIF PRD and (anticipated) RIF dialects with default negation.
>     How does that interact with SPARQL's non-monotonic features?
>     This probably affects issue-43: Should entailment-regimes be declared
>     over the whole dataset or individual graphs?
>   o RIF production rules: it is no even clear how conjunctive queries work.
>   o What is our timeline for RIF?


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:
FOAF   :
vCard  :

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 09:35:56 UTC