Re: [Fwd: Comments on SPARQL] (entailment, soundness, completeness)

On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:55, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Since the two major alternative approaches as I understand them  
> "virtual graphs" vs. entailment bases are, at least in some forms,  
> *equivalent* (I'm not clear pat means them to be anymore!) then the  
> whole first section of that email is motivate by spec clarity  
> issues. So, the use case *from my perspective* is producing  
> interoperable implementations for a variety of semantics imposed on  
> the source documents. For example, I may want to query the syntax  
> of an RDF document (i.e., with full asserted redundancy) for an  
> editor applicaiton, or I may want just the non-redundant  
> information in the graph (e.g., I don't want to have to post query  
> filter out that someone loving someone since mary loving john was  
> already in there).

I agree with  Bijan's comment.

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 13:01:05 UTC