The current definitions relate SPARQL queries to RDF MT entailment.
Does that address your issue?
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:08:11AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 06:37 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: comments on "SPARQL Query Language for RDF" (Non-respect for RDF Semantics)
> > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:26:54 -0500
> [...]
> > > The technical point you make is clear. If you can elaborate on what
> > > makes this a show-stopper, i.e. what one would want to do with SPARQL
> > > that one cannot do with the design as is, that would be even
> > > more helpful.
> >
> > My view is that this turns interoperating RDF implementations into
> > non-interoperating implementations. For example, an RDF implementation that
> > leans (RDF Semantics, Section 0.3) any graph it stores can interoperate with
> > one that doesn't, at least in my reading of the RDF Core WG documents.
>
> I see. Thanks.
>
>
--
-eric
office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
JAPAN
+1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell: +81.90.6533.3882
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 12:37:56 UTC