W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: subgraph/entailment

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:56:40 -0500
Message-Id: <65d25c4c7066f5afda5167778cb6da34@w3.org>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>

On Sep 5, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
> I don't see why we need to maintain in the document the wording 
> "subgraph of"; we could write "entailed by" and say that the type of 
> entailment is decided by the service.
>
> Why not?

There was a time when all designs had equal footing, but over the last
couple years we raised various issues and closed them, culminating in
a decision 28 June that we had a design that met our requirements and
addressed all outstanding issues.
   http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-minutes#item09

So at this point, if you want the WG to consider a different design, the
burden is on you give new information that motivates reconsidering
earlier decisions.

>> The current text in rq23 is based on the second paradigm.  Would it 
>> help to add text that explains that the subgraph is the subgraph of 
>> the entailed graph, not the ground data?
>
> No, as I said it does not work in important cases.

Which cases are those? I scanned the thread and I don't see what you're
referring to. If they're use cases that other WG members
find important, there may be sufficient cause to re-consider some 
decisions.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 5 September 2005 22:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT