Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

On 27 Dec 2005, at 19:37, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> a) in the document only 'simple entailment' is used. We want a
> parametric entailment, with simple, rdf, rdfs explicit at least, and
> owl-dl and owl possible. The argument here is that due to the infinite
> closure of RDF graphs (due to rdf:1, rdf:2, etc; or to the
> reification), this document would not even allow to have
> implementations that comply with the original RDF MT! Moreover, there
> are explicit requests about this in the SWBP WG, for example
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0072>.

Please note that there is a simple non invasive mode to satisfy this  
requirement: just add at the beginning of the document a note saying  
that whenever simple entailment is mentioned, we could actually use  
also RDF, RDFS, OWL-DL entailemnts.

cheers
--e.