W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: why I don't like named graph IRIs in the DATASET proposal

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:47:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05HYEupARo2yZ5XNyHGYOjJeo=swRxZzfFftAzCd4fSdeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

>
>
> Inference is defined over RDF graphs, not over collections of unasserted
> RDF graphs.
>
>
While I agree with this statement, isn't it the case that most graph stores
do inference over the collection of graphs in a dataset?

Given these two graphs in a single graph store and a schema that says
ex:ancestor is transitive then I'm sure many inference enabled systems will
answer true if asked whether :c is an ancestor of :a

:G1 { :a ex:ancestor :b }

:G2 { :b ex:ancestor :c }

I'm pretty sure BigOWLIM does this, possibly others too.



> Best,
> Richard
>


Ian
-- 
Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd.
http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 21:47:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT