W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: agenda: RDF Data Access WG telcon 11 May

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:16:23 +0100
To: "'Steve Harris'" <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005c01c43741$061296e0$0a01a8c0@atlas>

Steve,

Would dropping that last part make it acceptable [1]: I don't think it met
with much support:

- - - - - - - - - - - 
3.4 Subgraph Results

It must be possible to select an entailed subgraph of a queried graph.  In
this case, the results are themselves an RDF graph.
- - - - - - - - - - - 


I'd like to get help with the term "entailed" here - it is just my
understanding of how to view virtual triples as a possible RDF graph
satisfying the (not directly visible) abox/tbox.

Maybe s/an entailed of/a/


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0320.html

-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 11 May 2004 10:14
> 
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:55:02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 4. Requirement 3.4 Subgraph Results
> > 
> > DONE: EricP to write up implemention experience for 3.4
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-> rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0260.ht
> > ml
> > 
> > ACTION: Steve Harris to express objections to 3.4
> 
> My concern with 3.4 is mostly related to the part about
> "Executing the query on such a subgraph would yield the same
> subgraph; if obtaining variable bindings, the same variable
> bindings would be obtained."
> 
> This seems a bit overly restrictive and effectively rules out
> some things we might like, as described in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun
> /0276.html 

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 06:20:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT