- 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