W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: tests and inference? (and UNSAID)

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:40:49 +0100
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <OF9C3620A0.BD117EDD-ONC1256F6F.00539F15-C1256F6F.0056220C@agfa.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> I'm not sure what you mean; it makes more sense, to me, to specify what
> you're querying against in the FROM clause. If we wanted explicit
> support for "turning RDFS inferencing off" in SPARQL, I'd expect it
> to look something like:
>                SELECT ?C FROM rdfs(<mydata.rdf>) WHERE ( :x rdf:type 
> vs.
>                SELECT ?C FROM <mydata.rdf> WHERE ( :x rdf:type ?C).

very well
well, we tend to use a mixture of rdfs-rules, xsd-rules, owl-rules,..
and I'm not yet seeing how that would show up in SPARQL FROM clause..

> As I discussed earlier...
> RE: Test cases: source of a triple
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0363.html
> ... in N3, it's a matter of using these terms in the right places:
>   <mydata.rdf>.log:semantics
> i.e. the graph contained in mydata.rdf vs
>  (<rdfs-rules>.log:semantics
> <mydata.rdf>.log:semantics).log:conjunction.log:conclusion

right, and that could be like e.g. in first lines of


> i.e. the graph you get by conjoining mydata with rdfs-rules and
> computing the deductive closure.


Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 19 December 2004 15:41:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:31 UTC