- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:40:33 +0200
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> Given recent discussion and comments, I'm inclined to add > three issues to our issues list... > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues > > rdfSemantics -- should queries of equivalent graphs > give the same answers? Any practical advice about queries > over infinite graph such as all the RDF axiomatic triples? > > owlIntegration -- some explicit explanation of how OWL integrates > with SPARQL seems worthwhile. > > owlDisjunction -- the worker example evidently doesn't work > well with SPARQL as of the 21 July 2005 LCWD. Are there > mature designs that work better? At a minimum, we should > be explicit that we don't handle this. I believe that the entailment approach is mature, and is also what was done in RDFCore and WebOnt. Very loosely formulated, my actual implementation of CONSTRUCT is "if Dataset entails WHERE then CONSTRUCT" -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2005 15:40:45 UTC