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

Re: UNSAID - two test cases

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000
Message-ID: <41C9A999.9050302@hp.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
>>[...]
>>
>>Turning into a test case:
>>
>>== Data 1:
>>@prefix : <http://example.org/ns#> .
>>
>>:x a :foo .
>>:x a :bar .
>>
>>:y a :bar .
>>
>>== Query 1:
>>PREFIX : <http://example.org/ns#>
>>
>>SELECT ?r
>>WHERE (?r rdf:type ?type)        # Get all the things with a type
>>       UNSAID (?r rdf:type :foo)
>>
>>== Result Set 1:
>>------
>>| r  |
>>======
>>| :y |
>>------
> 
> 
> not only seems to assume closed world but also assume unique names
> i.e. there is an implicit assumption that
>   :x owl:differentFrom :y.
> and unless that is stated explicitly, I can't and want make
> such result
> 
> also still think it would be more explicit to say
>   UNSAID <in-which-graph> ( triple )

This happens anyway in the untrusted graph proposal:

UNSAID { pattern } would be in the default KB.

SOURCE <uri> { UNSAID { ..pattern.. } }

would be in the graph named <uri>.

There isn't a case of an indeterminant case in the untrsted graph proposal 
(I hope!).

	Andy

> 
> 
> hm.. now realize that my implementation of UNSAID using
> log:notIncludes has to be much improved.. not sure if
> it will succeed..
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:07:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT