Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Agenda-2010-03-10
From SPARQL Working Group
- Date of Call: Wednesday March 10, 2010
- Time of Call: 18:00 UK, 13:00 (East US)
- Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
- Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
- Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
- Participant Access Code: 772775
- IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #sparql ([irc:irc.w3.org:6665/sparql])
- Duration: 60 minutes
- Chair: Birte Glimm
- Scribe: ?
- Link to Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-03-10
- Proposed RIF entailment regime
- Safe vs. Strongly Safe, we use both, should we always use the strong variant?
- Why do we need (C2) for the RIF-RDF case? Will we have separate entailment regimes for RIF Core combined with RDF, RDFS, and OWL Full/DL?
- Editorial note: The 8th condition of a common-RIF-RDF-interpretation includes the set-theoretic semantics of rdfs:subClassOf that are also used by the RDFS Entailment regime.
- What's the best imports URI: sparql-rif:useRuleset, rif:useRuleset, or rif-rdf:useRuleset/ I thought we had an agreement for making it SPARQL specific, but that maybe applied to the fact that the definition is part of the net. regimes doc, but not necessarily the namespace.
- Embedding a subset of RIF-OWL combinations (OWL 2 RL for instance) as extensions to this entailment regime (issues of consistency checking, axiomatic triples and rules)
- A mapping from all the SPARQL builtins to corresponding RIF builtins (beyond those in the RIF Datatypes and Built-Ins document) could further close the expressive gap between RIF Core and SPARQL. They would most likely all be safe (and maybe also strongly safe).
- Are there examples of RIF Core (normatively) safe rulesets / documents that use builtins that do not introduce new values into the domain that are useful as arguments against the finite restrictions? (extant N3 Logic / CWM builtins don't really do that except the obvious log:semantics, etc.)