- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 22:50:49 +0200
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote: [...] > Trying to make the subgraph discussion concrete: > > Suppose we have an RDFS inference engine and: > :a rdf:type :c1 . > :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c2 . > then the query: > (?x rdf:type :c2) > returns the graph > :a rdf:type :c2 . Agreed and just te be sure, also tested, but then using a query in the form of ?x rdf:type :c2. or in the form of {?x rdf:type :c2} => {?x rdf:type :c2}. to get the graph returned as :a a :c2. > If some one wishes to argue for a form that returns: > (?x rdf:type :c2) => :a rdf:type :c1 . > or > (?x rdf:type :c2) => :a rdf:type :c1 . :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c2 . > > then I get worried because it seems to assume RDFS processing at the client. > Extend this argument to OWL and the client needs an OWL processor with > matched capabilities to the server. It's indeed more straightforward to just return RDF graphs (even for bindings e.g. expressed as (:a) a :Result. but that still seems rather meaningless to me at least without having the query at hand...) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 16:51:39 UTC