Re: subgraph/entailment

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:49:13 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> If 3Store (with RDFS inferences always on) is a non-compliant system, I 
> think Steve would complain :) I'm not clear that it is, but I'm not 
> clear that it isn't given the current spec wording.

My impression from reading the spec was thats its fine (the inferred
triples will go in "union" graphs). It could be much clearer, but I think
its right that it doesnt impose a particular method for representing
inferred triples, as theres no clear consensus on what the right interface

the SPARQL QL doc could me clearer on if/how its legitimate though.

- Steve

Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:05:36 UTC