| Question asked
|
# In section 3.2 authors simply mention ' …
# In section 3.2 authors simply mention 'we present the semantics for the notion of entailment for temporal graphs based on the corresponding notion of RDF graphs'. Later they use the notion of entailment in RDF graphs to prove Theorems 3 and later. I believe that it would have been convenient for readers if authors had included a line for RDF entailment (and-or a reference), like ''G1 entails G2 if an instance of G2 is subclass of cl(G1)''. What do you think? Have I missed something that authors have said in the paper?
# I was expecting more from this paper. My feeling is that even with ''timestamp''ing their work is scoped to ''snapshot''. The temporally reified statements are used to group them into graphs with same time-stamps for all purposes (entailment), except for probably querying. They leave incorporation of <, >, = comparisons for future work. I was looking for entailments such ''(a, b, c){1,5} entails (a, b, c){4}'', by inclusion of some axiomatic triples or other means.
# There is another thing that may merit attention- transitivity of intervals. For example, ''(a,b,c){1,3}, (a,b,c){3,5} entails (a,b,c){1,5}. ){1,3}, (a,b,c){3,5} entails (a,b,c){1,5}.
|
