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

RE: Requirement: 3.4 Subgraph Results

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:24:54 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808031A9BDC@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



-------- Original Message --------
> From: Jos De_Roo <mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com>
> Date: 28 May 2004 21:51
> 
> 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.

Yes.  That would be my expectation.

> 
> > 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...)
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 09:25:33 GMT

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