W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:22:01 +0000
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D057283D@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk]
> Sent: 15 April 2009 11:59
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Axel Polleres; 'RDF Data Access Working Group'
> Subject: Re: Parameterized Inference - starting mail discussion
> 
> On 14 Apr 2009, at 14:34, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > -1 : Too early. Do the important, well understood, well explored
> > features first.  SPARQL already has an extension point on BGP
> > matching. Use this and other extension mechanisms to explore this
> > area.  Much already possible, maybe inconveniently and not ideally,
> > with named graphs and different endpoint setups over the same base
> > data.
> [snip]
> 
> Thinking about this, wouldn't pragmas do the job admirably? I.e., for
> suggesting/requiring a particular entailment regime?
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Yes.  That was included under "other extension mechanisms" - I just avoiding getting into the "how".  My understanding and mental model for the query-part labelling pragmas would be able to do this via qualifiers to patterns or the whole query.  Opps - getting into "how" :-)

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 14:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT