- 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>
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 ?C). > 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 http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/01swap/docs/java/testResults/proofs/test_InconsistencyTest_descriptionlogic_001.n3 (<http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/Manifest001.rdf>.log:semantics <http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/inconsistent001.rdf>.log:semantics <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/owl-rules.n3>.log:semantics <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/xsd-rules.n3>.log:semantics <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/rdfs-rules.n3>.log:semantics).log:conjunction => ... > i.e. the graph you get by conjoining mydata with rdfs-rules and > computing the deductive closure. right -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 19 December 2004 15:41:27 UTC