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

Re: [TF-ENT] A few comments on RDFS Entailment section

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:17:44 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B27AAFB-66E1-467F-865B-B279EF272DAC@deri.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On 5 Oct 2009, at 13:35, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Birte,
>
> 1/ A simple example involving the RDFS vocabulary subClassOf or  
> subPropertyOf would be useful in showing the reader what is covered.
>
> 2/ Scoping Graph: it would be good to show the scoping graph in the  
> discussion points.
>
> 3/ Boolean queries.
>
> Doesn't the same applies to any BGP with no named variables, so  
> { [] :p :o } has an empty domain for sigma.
>
> 4/ DESCRIBE: The result of BGP matching are combined using the  
> algebra and finally the query form generates the results.  I wasn't  
> clear why DESCRIBE might be different.
>
> 5/ What's the "signature of the scoping graph" - I did a google  
> search and the top relevant hit was Design:EntailmentRegimes  
> itself.  Most were about signing graphs from the named graphs paper.

I assume Birte meant the vocabulary of the graph, cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#graphdefs?

>
> 6/ It would be useful to include RDF-entailment even if only to give  
> it an IRI.

+1


>         Andy
>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,  
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 17:18:20 GMT

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