W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Entailment document: Property Path

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:18:12 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=_W7tT9aFofNUdzgFb-2aDRLybGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
This time, reply all...

On 3 May 2011 07:29, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
[snip]
> In order to integrate with entailment, all property path evaluation comes
> down to looking for triples in a graph as part of the ALP function.  So for
> RDFS they shouldn't that be the same?


Bt the problem here is what is in the graph. Strictly speaking it is
just the triples without entailments. However, if you do entailment
via materialization, then you'd have to keep track of what are
entailed triples and don't consider them. It would be difficult to
define entailment not using entailment, but materialization rules
since as soon as you have disjunctions, you can no longer use
materialization.
If you materialize and don't keep track of what has been added for the
materialization, you'd get differen answers compared to systems that
don't maerialize, bu do more rewriting of the query.

Birte

>        Andy
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 10:18:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT