- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:50:48 +0200
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Pan, Dr Jeff Z." <jeff.z.pan@abdn.ac.uk>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Zhao, Yuting" <yuting.zhao@abdn.ac.uk>
On 5 Apr 2011, at 13:35, Birte Glimm wrote: > "Various W3C standards, including RDF and OWL, provide semantic > interpretations for RDF graphs that allow additional RDF statements to > be inferred from explicitly given assertions. Many applications that > rely on these semantics require a query language such as SPARQL, but > in order to use SPARQL basic graph pattern matching has to be defined > using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph > structures. " In order to clarify the possible alternative entailment regimes for the same entailment relation, I'd rather say (you may find a better formulation): "..., but in order to use SPARQL, basic graph pattern matching has to be adapted, possibly in different ways, using semantic entailment relations instead of explicitly given graph structures." > "An entailment regime defines not only which entailment relation is > used, but also which queries and graphs are well-formed for the regime > or what kinds of errors can arise. The entailment relations used in > this document are standard entailment relations in the semantic web > such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc." Similarly here: "An entailment regime defines not only which entailment relation is used, but also which queries and graphs are well-formed for the regime, how the entailment is used (since there are potentially different meaningful ways to use the same entailment relation) or what kinds of errors can arise. The entailment relations used in this document are standard entailment relations in the semantic web such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc." cheers --e.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 13:51:21 UTC