Re: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 08:17 , Alex Hall wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I think we should at least seriously consider both these options, to be in
> line with OWL (and also RIF, b.t.w., which refers to XSD1.1, too).
>

Oops, how could I forget RIF?  Added a fourth column in the table -- this
introduces a couple of new XSD 1.1 types (dayTimeDuration and
yearMonthDuration).

-Alex



>
> Caveat: XSD 1.1 is not yet a Rec. The reason why we could not close the RIF
> and the OWL working groups is that both standards refer to a
> non-recommendataion draft only and, whenever XSD 1.1 is a Rec, we will have
> to reissue an edited recommendation with the proper references. On the other
> hand, hopefully this will not be an issue for RDF.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> >
> > -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/
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>