- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:55:04 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> > > If one wishes to offer a query-answering service that does check > entailments, then the appropriate thing to do within the SPARQL > framework is to declare that one is matching queries against a > 'virtual graph' which is some kind of logical closure of the graph, > rather than the graph itself. But these are different graphs, note. Sure, we clearly understand that. > SPARQL does not require queries to be evaluated only against graphs > which are closed under some notion of entailment: it is > entailment-neutral (except, as noted above, regarding simple > entailment, which follows in effect as a structural consequence of the > very act of matching itself.) This is not an error or an omission, I > would emphasize, but a design decision. Fine, we want just give a nice semantics to it, which characterises the current design decisions, but that also scales up to have general entailment based query answering. Our proposal accommodates the current "syntactic-driven" behaviour of SPARQL *and* an entailment based one. Whatever has been done so far is fine for us, we are just giving a general entailment based semantics to it, which makes SPARQL much more useful and semantically meaningful. I'll send to the list our proposal later today. --e.
Received on Monday, 19 September 2005 19:00:23 UTC