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

RE: Potential text for time-permitting features in F&R

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:51:37 +0000
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646EFD2E14@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Birte,

While we loosely refer to "graph matching" it is a misnomer.  Sec 12.6 defines the extension framework in terms of answers to basic graph pattern.  There is no implied completing the graph with triples - which is impossible in some cases anyway; there is only returning answers.

Do you have a concrete example for SPARQL where they (direct and RDF semantics) differ?

	Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Birte Glimm
> Sent: 29 June 2009 16:44
> To: Ivan Herman
> Cc: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Potential text for time-permitting features in F&R
> 
> Ivan,
> sorry for answering late. My only problem with RDF based semantics is
> that it is not clear to me how this can be done properly with logical
> entailment rather than graph matching. In my understanding, you could
> either use SPARQL as it is now (with graph matching) to query OWL
> ontologies or for something closer to the entailment semantics, you
> would have to complete the graph with possibly an infinite number of
> new triples, which is not really feasible. It could work for the RL
> profile, so that might be something to start with. I am not opposed to
> mention both semantics since it is time permitting anyway, but the
> direct semantics is achievable IMHO, whereas I have doubts about the
> RDF based one, apart for OWL RL.
> Birte
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 16:52:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT