- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:21:58 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:11 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> Hi, >> we ask to finalise the text of Section 2.5. >> >> The new proposal of Pat <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- >> rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0061.html> does not work for any approach where >> bnodes are implicit, and this happens not only for OWL-Lite >> entailment, as we already pointed out in <http://lists.w3.org/ >> Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0064.html>, but also for >> RDF entailment. For example, given the graph >> :john :age "25"^^xsd:decimal . >> the query >> ASK { _:b rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral } >> should clearly return YES if RDF entailment is considered. However, >> according to the latest proposal from Pat the answer to the query >> would be NO regardless of the type of entailment considered. > > I thought we were approaching consensus on having just one > kind of entailment in this first version of SPARQL. While providing a clear and clean hook for adding other sorts. So you still have to consider the others. > Did something > change? I don't think so. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 05:26:36 UTC