- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:59:06 +0000
- To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: 'Dan Connolly ' <connolly@w3.org>, "'public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org '" <public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > Based on my current understanding, the client is not able to either be > informed concering what inferences the server may draw, nor is able to > constrain what kinds of inference the server may perform. Not within the query language itself. For the description of capabilities: Such information could be recorded in RDF in a service description. This would seem to be the way to get any information relating to the service made available - assert some RDF facts. Like RDF assertions about any document - we (DAWG) don't need to provide a mechanism to find, publish, change, sign, ... such information as it can be a regular RDF graph somewhere. For the constraining of queries: Different services would offer different capabilities. I think the spectrum of possibilities is wide enough that there is no fixed set we could define now and be useful - implementations don't fall into a neat set of a few classes of functionality. Andy > Given this, > how can SPARQL tests be written that could be used to demonstrate (non-) > conformance by SPARQL processors that perform inference? > > -bryan >
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 12:59:26 UTC