- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:40:44 +0100
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
and again with Reply All... (see below) On 3 October 2010 09:21, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Birte, > > On Oct 2, 2010, at 20:01 , Birte Glimm wrote: >> >>> Comments on your comments, too: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> - At the end of Section 2.2 I added an editorial note, which suggests >>>> an alternative C2 condition that basically forbits terms of the form >>>> rdf:_n as bindings. I am a bi concerned that if you want to implemen >>>> the regime via a set of materialisation rules, then at the moment, you >>>> have to look for which n the terms rdf:_n occur in the graph and for >>>> all those you add the axiomatic triples. This seems hard to do with a >>>> set of pre-defined rules that is independent of the input. If you >>>> would use the alternative, materialisation rules do not have to care >>>> for which n a term rdf:_n occurs in the input. I think it might be >>>> useful to point this out and maybe get some feedback from implementors. >>> >>> Yes, I understand the difficulty, having done some experimental rule based implementation of Horst myself some time ago. Indeed, the engine has to have a special branch that, for example, looks at the maximum 'n' for rdf:_n (Horst's condition was a bit more liberal than what we have). But I am, nevertheless, a bit wary about this alternative because, to use the example in the document, the user's expectation would clearly be to get rdf:_n back as an rdf:Property. I am not sure we should optimize on the implementation here (clearly, it _can_ done by an implementation, it is just a pain in the neck...) >> >> I also think that the current condition is nicer and I would like to >> keep it, but I am a bit concerned that this might not be what people >> actually implement, so I think asking for feedback could help us to >> judge whether we suggest something that just won't be accepted out in >> the wild. >> > > And I agree with that. But maybe add a note to the note that we are looking, primarily, to the feedbacks from implementers. I added now at the beginning of the note: The Working Group is particularly interested in feedback from implementors regarding the treatmeant of axiomatic triples with subjects of the form rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ... Birte > Ivan > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 10:41:12 UTC