- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:32:39 +0100
- To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
- Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Bijan wrote: > On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:47 PM, Kendall Clark wrote: > >> 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 > > They just need an URI denoting them as an individual. That could be a > member of the class Expressivity. OK, URI's are fine and what I did last 5 years was using such expressivities which can be passed as command line argument and have an internal mapping to load appropriate rule sets else if (el.verb.startsWith(RDF)) return "http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdf-rules.n3"; else if (el.verb.startsWith(RDFS)) return "http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3"; else if (el.verb.startsWith(XSD)) return "http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/xsd-rules.n3"; else if (el.verb.startsWith(OWL)) return "http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3"; on top of that (for builtins, owl comprehension axioms, ...) one can also source triples from <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#kb> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/math#kb> <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/string#kb> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#kb> >> 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... > [snip] > Well, I was thinking more of this. me too :) and I remember that I had quite a hard time to do just plain rdf inferencing (had to switch off all stuff like builtin substitution of equals for equals, builtins, owl comprehension, ...) > Suppose I am 3Store and I always aggressively do RDFS closure. I can't > *not* query the RDFS closure. > > Suppose I am am Sesame, which can turn off RDFS closure, but have it on > too. > > These seem interestingly distinct. > > Now suppose there is a graph whose RDF and RDFS closure is identical > (are there any? hmm. I'll have to check). never thought about that :) > Then, these stores would > return the same hits. So it seems a little odd to say that 3Store > *doesn't* do RDF closure. It doesn't *filter out* RDFS (only) > entailments. > > I'm not sure it matters, but it did occur to me. In a class > representation of expressivity, you might want RDFExpr to be a subclass > of RDFSExpr and so on. But that wouldn't mean you could do *only* rdf > expr if you did RDFSExpr. good btw Bijan, in http://www.mindswap.org/dav/ontologies/bijan/2005/dawg/TestClosedOver I was not quite sure what was meant with :RDFSGraph rdf:rest (); > Cheers, > Bijan. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 21:33:23 UTC