14:08:19 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:08:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/25-rif-irc 14:08:19 let;s start... 14:08:34 I think that we need to define the whole thing as follows: 14:08:41 Maybe that could work: Any RDF doc that uses URLs in the rif:namespace, should be viewed as a pair (G,R) where G is an RDF graph and R is a RIF ruleset. 14:09:12 the separation works as follows: 14:10:09 R is built by extracting (in a consuming manner) any RIF document encoded in the RDF graph. 14:10:38 (following http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_In_RDF) 14:10:47 G is the set of remaining triples 14:11:32 Te semantics is the one of (R1, G) accordign to SWC 14:12:00 where R1 is defined as R plus the following imports statements: 14:12:20 Imports (G) 14:13:37 i can hear you fine 14:13:47 messing with me mic... 14:14:11 I can SEE you , too! 14:15:07 ummmm. 14:15:32 will continue typing thoughts in the chat... 14:15:57 so we stopped at Imports(G) 14:37:24 is RDF KR or a DB... 14:42:51 lets assume G.rdf 14:43:13 R.rdf is a graph encoding a RIF ruleset a la sandro 14:43:27 my proposal for SPARQL would mean I can do 14:43:40 SELECT ... FROM G FROM R ... 14:44:00 SELECT ... FROM G FROM aux .... 14:44:15 where aux has a single tripl 14:44:18 R rif:usedWithProfile P . 14:45:26 I consider the former simpler ;-) 14:46:43 Imports (G RDF) 14:48:03 R union { sandro knows axel } 14:55:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Jan/0015.html 14:56:22 I would change "...such R1 is an IRI referring to a RIF document and P is a URI ..." to 14:57:10 "... such R1 is an IRI referring a RIF Document (which might be in XML or encoded in RDF, R1 being the label on the root node), and P is a URI ..." 14:58:06 axel: this needs to be in SWC 14:58:22 sandro: people who implement usedWithProfile will implement it no matter where the text is. 14:58:53 G = ({},G} 14:59:05 s/=/is considered as/ 15:00:51 assume R, G1, G2 in my triplestore 15:01:21 assume R1, R2, G1, G2 in my triplestore 15:01:28 G1, G2 are datagraphs 15:01:41 R1, R2 are encodung different subsets of RDFS 15:01:47 entailment rules 15:02:20 R1,R2 are graphs encodung rulesets R1' R2' 15:03:24 < R1' rif:usedWithProfile rif:rdfsimple > 15:03:31 R1' rif:usedWithProfile rif:rdfsimple }{ 15:03:37 { R1' rif:usedWithProfile rif:rdfsimple } 15:04:11 15:04:12 ... 15:04:19 is a URI 15:04:48 rif:usedWithProfile rif:rdfsimple 15:07:19 sandro knows axel 15:08:30 rdf:type rif:AssertedRuleset 15:09:05 SELECT ... FROM G FROM R ... 15:09:06 used-with-profile === is asserted, and has this profile 15:15:43 SELECT ... FROM G FROM aux .... 15:21:37 possibly with two RIF entailment regimes -- one for "direct" one for "rdf-based". 15:22:16 axel doesn't want to see infrastructural triples in the final result. 15:22:39 ... which is only possible with a kind of "direct semantics" 15:23:03 can just be addressed by naming R in the query, of course. 15:23:23 (which is, alas, out of scope for the current WG) 15:23:53 (parameterized inference) 15:24:46 compromise-1: axel ignores that extra infrastructure triple 15:25:04 compromise-2: sparql just does the direct-semantcs style. 15:27:34 (diverging) 15:31:52 sandro: you're proposing a mandate that, if the guy in the middle does RIF processing, he has to throw out the rif triples.... 15:32:26 axel: you can just carry them along, still 15:32:35 sandro: but you said they had to be removed...? 15:33:16 axel: load the same into to two different named graphs, with different entailment regimes. 15:36:55 Enc( Imports R ) 15:38:08 SELECT ?S ?P ?O from R 15:39:42 axel: I want to get the slots which are entailed by R. 15:39:48 expected behavior for me is getting back the entailed slots as RDF 15:40:19 sandro: I would give that PLUS the encoding of the ruleset in RDF, PLUS the usedWithProfile triples. 15:40:19 expected behior of sandro is getting back all those plus triples encodung R 15:41:05 this essentially is thegist of RDF-based semantics of RIF-in-RDF vs .direct semantics of RIF-in-RDF 15:42:11 sandro: this is kind of just Answer Only About Inference.... 15:42:24 sandro: (give me back ONLY the inferred triples.) 15:42:34 http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ 15:45:19 owl ontology: p rdfs:range c 15:46:12 owl:thing \subseteq \exist R.C 15:46:17 does that ontology entail itself? I believe it does, that even OWL DL is monotonic, on it's synteax. 15:49:13 encoding OWL in RDF is like encoding RDF in XML ... it introduces ambiguities, because it\s a syntactical thing 15:51:24 sandro: I don't like having triples disappearing from KB when you turn on RIF entailment. 15:53:02 ACTION: axel to write down owl direct vs OWL RDF test case and confirm with Birte 15:53:03 Created ACTION-1045 - Write down owl direct vs OWL RDF test case and confirm with Birte [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-09-01]. 15:53:25 test case: no bindings for ?s ?p ?o on p rdfs:range c under OWL Direct Semantics 15:55:21 sandro: I'm 97% sure that for any RDF graph G, OWL entails G (for each OWL semantics). 15:55:33 sandro: I'm 97% sure that for any RDF graph G, G OWL entails G (for each OWL semantics). 15:56:38 sandro: so if SPARQL is going its own way from that, then it can with RIF, too. 15:57:08 ACTION: sandro to write down test cases 15:57:08 Created ACTION-1046 - Write down test cases [on Sandro Hawke - due 2010-09-01]. 15:57:41 ACTION: to write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF 15:57:41 Sorry, couldn't find user - to 15:57:59 ACTION: Axel to write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF. 15:58:00 Created ACTION-1047 - Write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF. [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-09-01]. 15:58:31 action-1046? 15:58:31 ACTION-1046 -- Sandro Hawke to write down test cases for SPARQL's RIF Entailment and RIF TCs for RIF-in-RDF usesWithProfile -- due 2010-09-01 -- OPEN 15:58:31 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/1046 15:59:24 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/ here are the test cases so far 15:59:51 we have for SPARQL (heavily under construction, but I think there are already some for entailment) 16:20:08 1. RIF_Frame_Document_Described_But_Not_Used 16:20:08 a - output contains frame? sandro:no axel:yes 16:20:08 b - output contains description? sandro:yes axel:no 16:20:08 2. RIF_Frame_Document_Described_And_Used_Same_Graph 16:20:08 a - output contain frame? sandro:yes axel:yes 16:20:09 b - output contains description? sandro:yes axel:no 16:20:11 c - output contains usedWithProfile sandro:yes axel:? 16:20:13 3. RIF_Frame_Document_Described_And_Used_Different_Graph 16:20:15 a - output contain frame? sandro:yes axel:yes 16:20:17 b - output contains description? sandro:no axel:no 16:20:19 c - output contains usedWithProfile sandro:yes axel:? 16:20:37 something like that..... 18:11:20 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 18:11:35 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 18:53:30 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 19:17:26 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 20:31:04 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 20:32:21 rrsagent, make records public