- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:51:26 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all, the access code for the TF-ENT teleconf today is: 26631 See you soon, Birte On 21 February 2010 21:45, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> 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 #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (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: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql-ent > ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql-ent]) > * Duration: 60 minutes > * Chair: Birte Glimm > * Scribe: ? > * Link to Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-02-24 > > * 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 <http://example.org/myRules.rif>? > 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? > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 > Computing Laboratory > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283529 > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 17:51:59 UTC