- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:51:37 +0000
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Birte, While we loosely refer to "graph matching" it is a misnomer. Sec 12.6 defines the extension framework in terms of answers to basic graph pattern. There is no implied completing the graph with triples - which is impossible in some cases anyway; there is only returning answers. Do you have a concrete example for SPARQL where they (direct and RDF semantics) differ? Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Birte Glimm > Sent: 29 June 2009 16:44 > To: Ivan Herman > Cc: SPARQL Working Group > Subject: Re: Potential text for time-permitting features in F&R > > Ivan, > sorry for answering late. My only problem with RDF based semantics is > that it is not clear to me how this can be done properly with logical > entailment rather than graph matching. In my understanding, you could > either use SPARQL as it is now (with graph matching) to query OWL > ontologies or for something closer to the entailment semantics, you > would have to complete the graph with possibly an infinite number of > new triples, which is not really feasible. It could work for the RL > profile, so that might be something to start with. I am not opposed to > mention both semantics since it is time permitting anyway, but the > direct semantics is achievable IMHO, whereas I have doubts about the > RDF based one, apart for OWL RL. > Birte
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 16:52:36 UTC