- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:43:53 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[snip] >> So even though in a sense this inferred graph is what they are >> querying, we want to downplay that, since its identity URI, if any, is >> not used in the language., >> >> Of course "InferredGraph" is a little odd when there's no entailment >> regime being used, but maybe that's okay. Any other ideas? I agree that we shouldn't give the impression that the enriched graph is what is being queried. This might be the case in many systems, but to satisfy the ent. reg. you could also just partly materialise and do some query rewriting etc., so the query is really a query for the initial graph and materialisation is just a convenient implementation technique. How about calling the enriched graph MaterializedInferencesGraph? It is a bit longer and maybe not any better, but that's all the comes to my mind at the moment. Birte > Andy > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 17:44:31 UTC