Re: [Patterns] Materialize Inferences (was Re: Triple materialization at publisher level)

Dan Brickley wrote:
> This is where the delicate tradeoffs come into play, and where we
> would all benefit if there were conventions for documenting the
> information needs (eg. SPARQL templates) of consuming apps.

That's a nice idea.

I wouldn't say SPARQL templates though, as that's somewhat limiting and
not easily machine-processable. An RDF vocabulary for describing
information needs and/or capabilities, with predicates like
"can_understand_class" or "can_infer", would be sufficiently abstract
and also link nicely into the existing descriptions of the vocabularies
in question. (And SPARQL 1.1 adds URIs for entailment regimes I think?)

Has anything like this been done already?

-- 
Vasiliy Faronov