Re: Formal Semantics of OWL + RDF + SPARQL + SWRL

On 12/6/05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> Well, even an RDF-only store *should* be respecting the RDF semantic, which
> does have some non-trivial inferences.

Fair point. There is one set of inferences I think could be useful to
have available in all SPARQL-capable stores -

?s ?p ?o .
=>
?p rdf:type rdf:Property .

Being able to quickly check what predicates are in use in the store
seems to me potentially to offer a heuristic for asking "what do you
know about?"

> I agree that there is the possibility of allowing stores that have different
> functionality.  I do not believe, however, that the current vision of the
> Semantic Web supports a good way of providing this.

Do you have any (links to?) alternative visions which would be more suitable?

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com