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

RE: [TF-ENT] RDFS entailment regime proposal

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:13:21 +0000
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693EA8D478@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Birte Glimm
> Sent: 24 September 2009 18:31
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: [TF-ENT] RDFS entailment regime proposal
> 
> Hi all,
> whoever is interested in RDFS entailment: I would be very happy about
> comments and suggestions for the RDFS entailment regime as outlined
> in:
> http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL


The "Illegal Handling" says an error must be raised for illegal graph or query.

I would very much like to leave this undefined, which includes the possibility of raising an error but leaves the mechanism up to the implementation.

That is, illegal data or query puts a system outside the spec.  For example, if the graph is illegal (e.g. bad literal lexical form) but the query never touches that part of the graph, then the processor should be free to return something, and not be forces to raise an error which might require touching the whole graph to check it.

This also arises in query optimization as a BGP might be solved repeated by substitution (index join style) from data elsewhere in the query and the error might only be raised on quite lat eon in query processing but the whole query is required to be an error by the spec.

	Andy

Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 13:14:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT