W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: First order logic and SPARQL

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:56:36 -0500
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Jitao Yang <jitao.yang@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <9B1D715C-04A8-4353-BCCB-3994F371B790@ihmc.us>
To: Bob MacGregor <bob.macgregor@gmail.com>

On Sep 5, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Bob MacGregor wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> I put together an example a year or so where I executed a SPARQL query, and got a result, and
> then added a triple to the graph, and ran the same query, and one of the binding sets in the original result
> was not present in the new result.  That sure sounds non-monotonic to me. 

I guess it is in a sense, though I'd like to see the example before committing myself. My point however was directed at the assumption that implementing not-exists queries itself made the logic nonmonotonic, which is incorrect. 


> Now it may be that the triple
> store that I ran on had an incorrect implementation of SPARQL, but if so that vendor was unaware of
> the fact.  Are you claiming that the behavior that I saw would be an indication of an incorrectly-implemented
> SPARQL on whatever RDF store I observed it?
> - Bob

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 06:57:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:50 UTC