Re: subgraph/entailment (rdfSemantics)

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:55 +0200, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:37, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > For SPARQL to be useable, it must be possible to make queries  
> > against the exact triples in the base data.  Other modes shoudl  
> > also be possible determined by what service/graph/repository is  
> > being queried.
> >
> > It must be possible to access the base data for SPARQL to be  
> > useable for any application that is involved in building a graph  
> > while at the same time accessing it.  I coined the term "zero- 
> > entailment" as I couldn't find extsing terminology.
> >
> > I understand this to be part of the "Local Query" requirement. I  
> > had in mind that the query language be usable in applications that  
> > require access to the base data so they can add new triples, and  
> > they themselves deliver inference services to other applications.
> The point I am raising is in the case you want to be compliant with  
> RDF MT, which seems to me necessary for SPARQL: we don't want SPARQL  
> to be unable to correctly answer queries under the official standard  
> RDF-MT semantics.

The WG doesn't have any requirement along those lines, so you're
presuming a bit when you write "we don't want...". Meanwhile,
I found the way PFPS phrased the argument pretty compelling:

For example, an RDF implementation that
leans (RDF Semantics, Section 0.3) any graph it stores can interoperate with
one that doesn't. ... However, such interoperating RDF implementations cannot
become interoperating SPARQL implementations.

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:32:19 UTC