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

Re: Agenda: RDF Data Access WG 13 Sep

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:33:35 +0200
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3A2FE44A.FA6257F5-ONC125707A.006F0568-C125707A.0070E270@agfa.com>

[...]
> 9.    issues#owlDisjunction 
> 10.   note new issue; enumerate known options; initial straw poll 

In 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0414.html
I might have expressed a preference for entailment, but now I would prefer
to keep the "constructive logic" approach as is; this is based on 
implementation
experience from last weekend where we could indeed run such entailment
approach, but then CONSTRUCT result should be something what I posted at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2005Sep/0010.html
which is not simply a set of triples (is about necessities versus 
possibities).
In our implementation I can still have that FOL behaviour when I 
*explicitly* assert
{WHERE} => {}
but then would just derive inconsistencies i.e. empty set of triples.

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 20:34:36 GMT

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