W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:21:58 -0500
Message-Id: <fd61c81ff96ca7cf71065cd738d654c9@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:11 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> we ask to finalise the text of Section 2.5.
>> The new proposal of Pat <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
>> rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0061.html> does not work for any approach where
>> bnodes are implicit, and this happens not only for OWL-Lite
>> entailment, as we already pointed out in <http://lists.w3.org/
>> Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0064.html>, but also for
>> RDF entailment. For example, given the graph
>>      :john :age "25"^^xsd:decimal .
>> the query
>>      ASK { _:b rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral }
>> should clearly return YES if RDF entailment is considered. However,
>> according to the latest proposal from Pat the answer to the query
>> would be NO regardless of the type of entailment considered.
> I thought we were approaching consensus on having just one
> kind of entailment in this first version of SPARQL.

While providing a clear and clean hook for adding other sorts. So you 
still have to consider the others.

> Did something
> change?

I don't think so.

Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 05:26:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC