Re: tests and inference? (and UNSAID)

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