[big snip and maybe I miss some of context as I'm in time trouble..]
>>Our current text can be proved to be equivalent to subgraph
>>matching, and it is normative only for the simple entailment case.
>>So we agree on everything, do we?
>
> Well, I still prefer treating bnodes as 'blank variables', as it is
> clearer and simpler: and since you are proposing (you are correct, I
> had either not read this correctly or had forgotten, or maybe both)
> that bnodes in queries be ruled out for 'higher' entailments, and the
> definitions are equivalent up to RDFS, it seems that this choice is
> not too important either, right? But apart from this, I have no real
> quarrel with the definitions as stated.
To me bnodes in WHERE clauses are still SPARQL variables
scoped in rules like
{WHERE-triples} => {SELECT-tuples}
{WHERE-triples} => {CONSTRUCT-triples}
and works simply like that and I really can't see any problem..
also no problem for querying OWL-Full data
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 21:30:17 UTC