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

Re: Requirement: 3.4 Subgraph Results

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 22:50:49 +0200
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5F1060C4.D2727A50-ONC1256EA2.006E04E1-C1256EA2.00726677@agfa.com>

Andy Seaborne wrote:
[...]
> Trying to make the subgraph discussion concrete:
>
> Suppose we have an RDFS inference engine and:
>     :a rdf:type :c1 .
>     :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c2 .
> then the query:
>     (?x rdf:type :c2)
> returns the graph 
>     :a rdf:type :c2 .

Agreed and just te be sure, also tested, but then
using a query in the form of
        ?x rdf:type :c2.
or in the form of
        {?x rdf:type :c2} => {?x rdf:type :c2}.
to get the graph returned as
        :a a :c2.

> If some one wishes to argue for a form that returns:
>     (?x rdf:type :c2) => :a rdf:type :c1 .
> or 
>     (?x rdf:type :c2) => :a rdf:type :c1 . :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c2 .
>
> then I get worried because it seems to assume RDFS processing at the 
client.
> Extend this argument to OWL and the client needs an OWL processor with
> matched capabilities to the server.

It's indeed more straightforward to just return
RDF graphs (even for bindings e.g. expressed as
        (:a) a :Result.
but that still seems rather meaningless to me
at least without having the query at hand...)

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 16:51:39 GMT

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