- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:24:54 +0100
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-------- Original Message -------- > From: Jos De_Roo <mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com> > Date: 28 May 2004 21:51 > > 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. Yes. That would be my expectation. > > > 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...)
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 09:25:33 UTC