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

Re: SPARQL semantics: open issues for basic query patterns

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:15:37 -0600
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1135865738.20839.38.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 19:40 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2005, at 19:37, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> > a) in the document only 'simple entailment' is used. We want a
> > parametric entailment, with simple, rdf, rdfs explicit at least, and
> > owl-dl and owl possible. The argument here is that due to the infinite
> > closure of RDF graphs (due to rdf:1, rdf:2, etc; or to the
> > reification), this document would not even allow to have
> > implementations that comply with the original RDF MT! Moreover, there
> > are explicit requests about this in the SWBP WG, for example
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0072>.
> Please note that there is a simple non invasive mode to satisfy this  
> requirement: just add at the beginning of the document a note saying  
> that whenever simple entailment is mentioned, we could actually use  
> also RDF, RDFS, OWL-DL entailemnts.

Please suggest wording for such a note.

Regardless of what the note says, in the version of SPARQL
that we're standardizing, the answer to this query is False, right?

Input data s:

 :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c2.
 :c2 rdfs:subClassOf :c3.


 ASK { :c1 rdfs:subClassOf :c3 }.



Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2005 14:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:37 UTC