- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:23:18 +0000
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
On 11 Mar 2010, at 17:30, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > On 3/10/10 12:58 PM, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > > "The compatibility document defines 3 additional notions of RIF > > satisfiability with respect to a combination that builds on simple > > entailment: RIF-RDF, RIF-RDFS, and RIF-D satisfiability." > > > > I's suggest to mention RIF-simple satisfiability, explicitly, before. > > I've reworded that part to better explain how the RIF-simple model theory is > the basis for the other 3 and emphasized that entailment regime is only for > simple entailment (it is now called Simple RIF Core). > > > "For the purpose of this entailment regime, we will only define > > answers with respect to those RDF graphs that are RIF-RDF satisfiable > > and RIF-RDF-entailed by the combination formed from the scoping graph > > and a referenced, strongly safe RIF-Core [RIF-Core] document." > > > > why not RIF-simple? > > See above > > > --- > > > > "Any legal RDF graph. RDF graphs that do not have a statement with a > > predicate of rif-rdf:usesRuleset will not be applicable to this > > entailment regime" > > I find this too strong. It seems to preclude to use e.g. an RDF stroe > > which has some default Ruleset, it uses. > > Can we get around this? > > I'm not sure how else you can be explicit about the ruleset that will be > used to form the combination. What I meant more was whether we need always to require to be explicit. > > ------ > > > > "well-formed RDF triples that are RIF-RDF-entailed by the RIF-RDF > > combination formed from SG and the strongly safe RIF core documents > > referenced from SG via the rif-rdf:usesRuleset predicate." > > > > this seems to include all the RDF axiomatic triples! so possibly > > infinite answers, unless you meant to use s/RIF-RDF/RIF-simple/g in > > all the above said. > > Yes, this has all been changed to use RIF simple, so conditions that limit > the solutions to terms in a vocabulary to ensure finiteness are no longer > needed (in the case of combinations with a strongly safe RIF core document). > > > However, I think we could - quite easily - extend that to RIF-RDF and > > RIF-RDFS alalogoosly as we do it for the RDF and RDFS entailment regimes! > > I'm planning on adding an informative section on how the mechanisms such as > the embeddings in the RIF-RDF compatibility document can be used to build > other RIF Core entailment regimes that coincide with (finite) RDF, RDFS, and > OWL2-RL entailment. > sounds good, let's see how far we get there! Thanks for all your work/efforts! Axel > -- 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. >
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 15:23:52 UTC