Re: Importing RIF

> I understand the RIF WG situation. Ie, the decision to put it into the SPARQL document is procedurally a possibility. The possibility I was wondering abot is that the SPARQL WG put this note as a REC separately and then the entailment document would refer to it.

Hmm, Sandro's and my idea was rather the other way around, cf.
 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-01
i.e. copy the spec to our SPARQL document and then see whether the RIF-in-RDF [2] doc goes further than a Note (upon which we can't really rely):

The rationale is:
 - this way doesn't to put us under stress to put the RIF-in-RDF doc forward to Rec (in the light of our tight schedule and other things on our plate, that seems preferable)
 - if I understood Sandro correctly, when the Second Edition for XSD comes out, we will anyways need to do an update/erratum for some RIF documents, including [1], where 
   we can include a mention of the SPARQL Entailment Regimes document and rif:usedWithProfile.

Axel

1. RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf/

On 13 Dec 2010, at 05:41, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> On Dec 12, 2010, at 17:18 , Polleres, Axel wrote:
> 
>> Hi ivan,
>> 
>> This document would be the note by rif, but rif will not bring it to rec anymore. Thus, sandro and I decided to move the definition to the sparql doc, since we can't reference a non-rec document normatively.
> 
> I understand the RIF WG situation. Ie, the decision to put it into the SPARQL document is procedurally a possibility. The possibility I was wondering abot is that the SPARQL WG put this note as a REC separately and then the entailment document would refer to it.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Axel
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>> To: Polleres, Axel
>> Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> Sent: Sun Dec 12 11:13:19 2010
>> Subject: Re: Importing RIF
>> 
>> Hi Axel,
>> 
>> interestingly, a question was posted on the SWIG list on this issue[1] recently...
>> 
>> In fact, this begs a procedural question. What you do in this document is to define a new predicate and its semantics. The predicate is in the RIF namespace, I presume the RIF WG is o.k. with that (recalling the mailing list discussions there). However, the mechanism itself, ie, the semantics of rif:usedWithProfile, is not SPARQL specific (see [1] below). I wonder whether it is worth separating this into a distinct document that can be referenced to in general as a Rec in its own right.
>> 
>> (B.t.w., I like the design:-)
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Dec/0098.html
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 19:38 , Axel Polleres wrote:
>> 
>>> Sandro and I have drafted - in coordination with the RIF WG - a section on importing RIF, wiki version at:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Importing_RIF
>>> 
>>> I would also like to discuss this in the course of entailment regimes, this part shall replace the 
>>> current Section 7.1 in the entailment regimes document:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/#id35811453
>>> 
>>> I got some comments from Birte already, which were mainly about clarifying some parts, other comments certainly welcome!
>>> 
>>> This completes ACTION-298, BTW.
>>> best,
>>> Axel
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 11:41:22 UTC