- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:29:36 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- cc: "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>
> 2) ... as I see it there is *potential issue* around a separate spec
> which worries me a lot... if we *don't* specify the importing from
> RDF within rif-rdf-owl, then whatever we write in that note separate
> spec would be potentially incompatible with rif-rdf-owl ... here's
> why:
>
> Say you have two rulesets R1, R2 and one graph G:
>
> G:
> G <> rif:imports [rif:ruleset R1 rif:profile <...simple...> ].
>
> R2:
> Imports( G <...simple...> )
> ... some rules ...
>
> R1:
> (Imports R2)
> ... some other rules ... no imports clause
>
> Now... depending on whether or not the imports-mechanism in RDF has a
> semantics, the RIF-RDF combination (R2,G) has different semantics.
>
> So, my worry is, if we postpone that issue to post-RIF, we can't
> define it in an upwards compatible way at all...
I'm sorry, I haven't been able to follow this closely. And now I don't
quite understand it.
In this example, if you load any of the three, you get the other two
imported as well, right? And you're saying that we have to change
something in SWC to have the semantics be the same regardless of which
one we start with (which is clearly desirable).
And what you want added to SWC is, basically, to say that when RIF
imports an RDF graph, it should follow the rif:imports terms which are
in the graph?
(I'm trying to understand the technical issue separate from the
procedural issue, first.)
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 23:29:45 UTC