- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:54:44 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <49F1C4A4.6040708@inf.unibz.it>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> >> Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> Look like good proposals. >> >> So you do not have a problem with the slight change in the semantics of >> RDF lists (in combinations) implied by the proposal? > > The change being the equality implications (e.g. a list with two > rdf:firsts implying that the object values are equal)? Right. > > If so, then the definition makes sense but does mean that even with > simple-entailment implementing a Core-RDF combination requires equality > reasoning, which is worrying. Unless you require lists to be well formed in the input. > > In practice all the in-the-wild RDF lists I've ever seen are well-formed. > > I wonder if restricting the semantics of interpretations to RDF graphs > with well-formed lists would be preferable and leave the interpretation > of ill-formed lists as undefined? > > Alternatively, have this stronger definition of the semantics but limit > conformance to only being required over well-formed lists. Well, there is currently no notion of conformance in SWC. If we would have such a notion, I would prefer using performance, rather than tweaking the semantics, because I think this might lead to unintuitive results. > >>> My assumption is that we'd want the one-to-one mapping but that's to be >>> discussed I guess. >> >> The argument against the one-to-one mapping is that it's harder to >> implement. I believe you cannot implement it in a rule system that does >> not support function symbols, unless you have specific machinery for >> manipulating the RDF list structures while you manipulate the RIF >> structures: the construction of an RIF list implies the existence of a >> bunch of objects used for the structure of the RDF list. > > I think any system likely to implement this would have such specific > machinery anyway. > > However, the "as extensions" option is still useful and a lower > implementation barrier so perhaps that would be the better choice. It > doesn't stop people doing future extensions which strengthen the link. > > I won't be there on Tuesday (though I may be able make the first 25m of > the call if that would be useful). At the moment my preference would be > "as extensions" as top choice (on grounds of lower implementation cost) > but "1-to-1" also acceptable. > >> By the way, I believe that even the "RIF lists as extensions" is not so >> straightforward to implement, especially when using the RDFS semantics. >> You can do things like creating sub properties of rdf:first, and so you >> cannot read the structure of the lists from the syntax of the graph. > > Not that much of a problem for any system which already does RDFS > inference though I guess in a RDF-RIF combination they might be thinking > of punting off the RDFS reasoning to the RIF engine by using the > embedding approach. > >> For embedding this semantics (in the appendix of this specification) I >> was thinking of restricting the use of rdf:first, rdf:rest, and rdf:nil >> in combinations, so that the RIF lists can simply be constructed from >> the RDF lists in the graphs. > > That's a stronger restriction than well-formed lists. I have seen > in-the-wild use of sub-properties of first/rest (for representing typed > lists). > > Since the embedding is only Informative anyway then such a restriction > would be OK but I'm not sure it is necessary. Can't you write the > embedding so that the RIF rules construct the RIF lists from the > separate frame assertions? Such rules would not be guaranteed > terminating but could still be within Core now we've moved E-S safety > out to an informative section. Yes, I think this can be done if we have appropriate built-ins. But we'll first have to see what happens there. Jos > > Cheers, > Dave > > > -- +43 1 58801 18470 debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- Many would be cowards if they had courage enough. - Thomas Fuller
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 13:55:31 UTC