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

Re: [Fwd: Comments on SPARQL] (entailment, soundness, completeness)

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:58:41 +0200
Message-Id: <D725B19C-9A6C-4D31-9DED-299A25E6794E@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com

On 20 Sep 2005, at 15:31, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Enrico, elsewhere in your message about "Adoption of entailment  
>>> in SPARQL"
>>> of September 19, 2005 11:55:09 PM GMT+01:00, you wrote "here we  
>>> don't
>>> argue whether this is useful and how this is going to be used."  
>>> Note that I
>>> pretty much stopped reading at that point.
>> I think you were mislead by Enrico's words there. There are plenty  
>> of places in that note that he appeals to existing, documented  
>> SPARQL use cases to motivate his technical points, e.g.,
>> [issue <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#rdfSemantics>]
>> """
>> Should queries of non-lean and lean graphs that entail each other
>> give the same answers?
>> """
>> The answer to this question should be *yes*. See use case 1,
>> "Publishing on the Web", in
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/ 
>> 0430>).
>> This is also relevant, as noted by PFPS, to enable interoperability
>> between different interoperating implementations of RDF."""
> The quoted email has two use cases - the same query is used on the  
> same data in two separate situations.  The desired results are then  
> different.
> I can't tell if the proposed formulation reflects this or not - at  
> the moment, I don't see any place where this is acknowledged.   
> Could someone kindly point such a place out to me, please?

My original long email <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- 
rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0450> is exactly about giving a uniform and  
elegant semantics that encompasses *both* use cases.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 13:59:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC