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

RE: Entailment Regimes Doc

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>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693EA8E0DC@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT