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

Re: Re 2: [TF-ENT] Querying datasets with default plus named graphs

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:42:50 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F65B17C7-9754-497C-9F11-52E454E1FE97@deri.org>
References: <492f2b0b0910070452j9e03002l40dd02df4705f062@mail.gmail.com> <492f2b0b0910080334n38fb2a63r3dff36d95e2e88dd@mail.gmail.com> <4ACDDEB9.2060207@w3.org> <492f2b0b0910080635p6b8e5a3aj460f4051fbeff1b6@mail.gmail.com> <4e0424de7bbc475cffceb9b523bb96af.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org> <492f2b0b0910090621v174b8481sde27c03eef76ebea@mail.gmail.com> <4AD2EE38.90908@w3.org> <492f2b0b0910120341p3c483e42s2e0b619c84bd3ee1@mail.gmail.com> <4AD30D8F.6070007@w3.org> <4AD31D1C.4010305@w3.org> <492f2b0b0910120647k79c12383g7e05575a04f34cd2@mail.gmail.com> <8DD13C2F-ABD9-4365-9FB2-3588187FE426@deri.org> <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693F7D3F7A@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <D74F1FB6-BEAC-43F9-A49E-17291922464A@deri.org> <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693FA224DC@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <A46EBF10-0D0D-4695-9D78-2EC10BFB7246@deri.org> <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693FA224E4@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <150EAD9A-9B73-4B35-AB99-674E1C51CEB8@deri.org> <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693FA224E9@GVW118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Return-Path: axel.polleres@deri.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2009 19:42:51.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[031E7F00:01CA4F62]

> There is issue 43 -- can we close that now?

I am not entirely clear about whether that issue can be closed,  
the issue text says:
"Should entailment-regimes be declared over the whole dataset or  
individual graphs?"

Let me try to summarise the ongoing discussion here:

- we seem to all agree that entailment should not imply inferences  
across graphs
- SD currently only allows to declare the same entailment regime for  
each graph
   on a single endpoint, since sd:supportedEntailment is declared per  
a service.

- there are examples where people use different entailment regimes for  
   graphs in the same dataset. this can not be covered by current SD

- Do we all need to extend SD here? Should it allow to declare  
different entailment
   regimes for different graphs in the default dataset of the service?

Before closing the issue,  I'd like to solicit a few more opinions/ 
examples for that.
(Birte? Greg? Others?)
I am not entirely sure at this point whether this is actually a new  
issue and 43 as
it was raised is indeed done.

Received on Saturday, 17 October 2009 19:43:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:58 UTC