- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:54:36 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all, the conference code for todays entailment regime teleconf is: 772775. Birte On 8 March 2010 15:33, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > I've read the RIF sections and I am really happy about the progress > that I see. Much better than anything I could produce with my limited > RIF knowledge. I'll try to compile the main open points (taking into > account Ivan's and Chime's own comments) for our teleconf on Wednesday > below. If you have any additions or amendments, please let me know. I > also have a few smaller/editorial comments, which I'll send in a > separate email. > Cheers, > Birte > > * Date of Call: Wednesday March 10, 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 > ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql]) > * Duration: 60 minutes > > o Proposed RIF entailment regime > - Safe vs. Strongly Safe, we use both, should we always use the > strong variant? > - Why do we need (C2) for the RIF-RDF case? Will we have separate > entailment regimes for RIF > Core combined with RDF, RDFS, and OWL Full/DL? > - Editorial note: The 8th condition of a common-RIF-RDF-interpretation: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rif-rdf-owl-20091001/#def-common-rif-rdf-interpretation > includes the set-theoretic semantics of rdfs:subClassOf that are > also used by the RDFS Entailment regime. > - What's the best imports URI: sparql-rif:useRuleset, > rif:useRuleset, or rif-rdf:useRuleset/ I thought we had an agreement > for making it SPARQL specific, but that maybe applied to the fact that > the definition is part of the net. regimes doc, but not necessarily > the namespace. > - Embedding a subset of RIF-OWL combinations (OWL 2 RL for instance) as > extensions to this entailment regime (issues of consistency checking, > axiomatic triples and rules) > - A mapping from all the SPARQL builtins to corresponding RIF > builtins (beyond those in the RIF Datatypes and Built-Ins document) > could further close the expressive gap between RIF Core and SPARQL. > They would most likely all be safe (and maybe also strongly safe). > - Are there examples of RIF Core (normatively) safe rulesets / > documents that use builtins that do not introduce new values into the > domain that are useful as arguments against the finite restrictions? > (extant N3 Logic / CWM builtins don't really do that except the > obvious log:semantics, etc.) > > > -- > 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, 10 March 2010 17:55:10 UTC