- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:19:15 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Ivan Herman > Sent: 01 October 2009 08:58 > To: Birte Glimm > Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group > Subject: Re: Entailment Regimes Doc > > > > Birte Glimm wrote: > > > >> Is the implication that inference only happens within a (named) graph? > > > > Good point. I have to check on that and see whether this is clear from > > the SPARQL 1.0 spec or whether we have to specify something for that > > in the ent. regimes. The notion of named or default graph is not used > > in the OWL context. I have never seen it in the RDF(S) spec either > > (maybe I forget), so if the SPARQL spec does not say anything, then we > > have to address that I guess. Any clues? > > > > You did not forget:-) Names and default graphs are not concepts handled > by RDFS currently. Entailment happens on BGP matching. "12.6 Extending SPARQL Basic Graph Matching" There is a hierarchy Query forms -- Solution Modifiers -- SPARQL algebra -- BGP matching Andy
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 09:19:49 UTC