- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:47:21 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:55:45AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> If the action was to show the feasibility, then it is completed.
I think I understand what you've done. But my only concerns are
1. Jos's case of being able to say that a graph is closed over an
arbitrary (?) set of rules
2. the point that Bijan raises in a later message; that, for
example, a graph may be closed over only the "interesting" subset
of, say, RDFS entailments... Maybe there's not a real need to be
able to say something this specific in the service description,
but I can imagine a client taking "RDFS closure" in a strong way,
querying for some triple that's inferred by one of the RDFS
entailment rules that a particular graph *doesn't* implement...
Both of these seem corner cases, though I recognize that may just mean
"not my use case".
Jos?
Kendall
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 18:51:53 UTC