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

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:29:38 +0100
To: phayes@ihmc.us
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEE9F16A0.04D0C6C7-ONC12570FA.0074BAEF-C12570FA.007609D3@agfa.com>
[big snip and maybe I miss some of context as I'm in time trouble..]

>>Our current text can be proved to be equivalent to subgraph 
>>matching, and it is normative only for the simple entailment case. 
>>So we agree on everything, do we?
>
> Well, I still prefer treating bnodes as 'blank variables', as it is 
> clearer and simpler: and since you are proposing (you are correct, I 
> had either not read this correctly or had forgotten, or maybe both) 
> that bnodes in queries be ruled out for 'higher' entailments, and the 
> definitions are equivalent up to RDFS, it seems that this choice is 
> not too important either, right? But apart from this, I have no real 
> quarrel with the definitions as stated.

To me bnodes in WHERE clauses are still SPARQL variables
scoped in rules like

{WHERE-triples} => {SELECT-tuples}

{WHERE-triples} => {CONSTRUCT-triples}

and works simply like that and I really can't see any problem..
also no problem for querying OWL-Full data


-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 21:30:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT