W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

FAQ questions 3.10 + 3.11

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:54:58 +0100
Message-Id: <1861FD17-59ED-4DD5-B0FD-91A3FCA77085@deri.org>
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
3.11 is fine for me.

However, I think 3.10 is misleading.
At least, I propose to remove the "Yes", we cannot generally do named  
graph and reason about named graphs, can we?

i.e. I cannot write e.g. a rule which refers to triples intwo  
different named graphs in its body, can I?

Actually, that is my suggestion for change:

=======
3.10 Is RIF useful for reasoning about the provenance of claims  
expressed in RDF, eg. multiple named graphs in SPARQL that offer  
competing accounts of some situation?

Yes. If the differing named graphs are located in different web  
documents, then RIF with RDF compatibility (see [2]) has an import  
mechanism that can be directed to the specific web documents and  
reason about them.

=======>
3.10 Is RIF useful for reasoning about the provenance of claims  
expressed in RDF, eg. multiple named graphs in SPARQL that offer  
competing accounts of some situation?

If the differing named graphs are located in different web documents,  
then RIF with RDF compatibility (see [2]) has an import mechanism that  
can be directed to the specific web documents and reason about them.  
More refined notions of import that allow to modularly refer to facts  
from different imported documents could be covered in extended RIF  
dialects.

=======

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,  
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 15:55:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 September 2009 15:55:39 GMT