- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:16:23 +0100
- To: "'Steve Harris'" <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve, Would dropping that last part make it acceptable [1]: I don't think it met with much support: - - - - - - - - - - - 3.4 Subgraph Results It must be possible to select an entailed subgraph of a queried graph. In this case, the results are themselves an RDF graph. - - - - - - - - - - - I'd like to get help with the term "entailed" here - it is just my understanding of how to view virtual triples as a possible RDF graph satisfying the (not directly visible) abox/tbox. Maybe s/an entailed of/a/ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0320.html -------- Original Message -------- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <> > Date: 11 May 2004 10:14 > > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:55:02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > 4. Requirement 3.4 Subgraph Results > > > > DONE: EricP to write up implemention experience for 3.4 > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-> rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0260.ht > > ml > > > > ACTION: Steve Harris to express objections to 3.4 > > My concern with 3.4 is mostly related to the part about > "Executing the query on such a subgraph would yield the same > subgraph; if obtaining variable bindings, the same variable > bindings would be obtained." > > This seems a bit overly restrictive and effectively rules out > some things we might like, as described in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun > /0276.html - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 06:20:25 UTC