W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Naming (Re: Service Description document)

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:43:53 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhWtKKpgrHICppDMQ3fK2JuvJ1c34GHKwP-hqc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>> 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

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.


>        Andy

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 17:44:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC