- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:24:03 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-------- Original Message --------
> From: Steve Harris <>
> Date: 26 August 2004 11:48
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:47:46 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > == Test case 1 : union case:
> >
> > a.rdf:
> > :r :p :v .
> >
> > b.rdf:
> > :r :p :v .
> >
> >
> > This has one result:
> > SELECT * WHERE { ?x ?y ?z }
>
> Possibly, depending on how you define union.
>
> SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE { ?x ?y ?z }
>
> has one result, certainly.
>
> > == Test case 2: inference
> >
> > Data:
> > a1.rdf:
> > :x rdf:type :C1 .
> > :C1 rdfs:subClassOf :C2 .
> >
> > Query:
> > SELECT * WHERE { ?x rdf:type :C2 }
> >
> > ?x = :x
> > ?src = <a.rdf> maybe.
>
> Assuming you missed the SOURCE ?src bit,
Yes - sorry.
> then I dont think ?src should
> bind to <a.rdf>, the triple (? rdf:type :C2) does not appear in a.rdf.
> Same applies to the following examples.
The two graphs, a1.rdf and a2.rdf, mutually RDFS-entail each other. It
should be invisible to the query client how information is obtained - only
whether statements are true or not from the point of view of the publisher.
How the publisher models shouldn't matter. They may choose to create all
inferred triples because it makes their system go faster - they may choose
not to because it is then smaller. It should be their choice.
Andy
>
> - Steve
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 11:24:22 UTC