W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Protocol specification of entailment level (was Re: The Entailment bit (was Re: thoughts from Tuesday telecon))

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:13:31 +0100
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050929081330.GJ5585@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:03:15 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> >In earlier WG discussions, DanC point out that a graph and its RDFS 
> >closure are not the same and would be expected to have different URIs 
> >as graphs to query.
> That's another reasoner for me to prefer an entailment view. The graph 
> queried under rdf entailment and rdfs entailment *are* the same, 
> although the answers they give are different. I have no desire to have 
> a URI for the closures of any kind of any document.

I'm absolutly not qualified to talk about the logical issues here, but
from a practical point of view, both as a user and developer its very
useful to be able to distinguish a graph as fetched from the web and any
entailments from it.

Pre-SPARQL versions of 3store did not seperate them (as far as the user
could tell), and it caused confusion.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 08:13:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:36 UTC