Re: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr> wrote:

> Le 09/06/2011 13:55, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
>
>  On 9 Jun 2011, at 11:11, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>
>>> Should we update D-entailment such that it necessary supports XSDs?
>>> (my answer: yes)
>>>
>>
I don't think so.  The 'D' in RDF D-entailment is a placeholder for any
datatype map that an application wants to use.  SPARQL defines the datatypes
that must be present in that map for implementations of SPARQL D-entailment,
but I don't think we want to force that on all RDF implementations.


>
>> Wouldn't that cause problems with OWL2, which doesn't support all XSD
>> types (eg xsd:time I believe)?
>>
>
> Hmm, interesting. So, strangely enough, the datatype maps for the OWL 2
> RDF-Based Semantics entailment regime are not extensions of the datatype
> maps of the D-entailment regime in SPARQL 1.1 (as it is written now). This
> disserves to be pointed out to the SPARQL WG.
>

...and the datatype maps for OWL2 and SPARQL are both different from the XSD
datatype map defined in RDF.  For those interested, I pulled all this
together on a wiki page:

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes

A couple of questions arise from this:
1. Should RDF's XSD datatype map be expanded to include the new XSD 1.1
xsd:dateTimeStamp (referenced by OWL2)?
2. Should we reference the new XSD1.1 spec for RDF?

-Alex



>
> Note, however, that D-entailment (in SPARQL terms) does not support all XSD
> types either.
>
> --
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Researcher at:
> Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
> Database Group
> 7 Avenue Jean Capelle
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13
> Lecturer at:
> Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
> 20 Avenue Albert Einstein
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>
>