Axel Polleres wrote: [skip] >> >>> I guess >>> this default graph would be temporary, right and if I query again >>> without the from clause, I would again get no results, right? >>> >>> Ok, assuming I understand that right, I would much prefer to keep >>> entailments local to the graph. >> >> +1 > Same here, +1 > +1 to keep entailments local to the separate graphs in the DS > (<chairhatoff> although I personally consider it a drawback that you > can't refer to ontologies from named graphs) > Hm. Yes, this seems to be a consequence which is a bit disagreeable indeed:-( In OWL, I can of course use owl:import in my WHERE clause (Birte, this is all right, isn't it?) which is not that bad, the user has to make things explicit. But this does not help the RDFS case. It also raises an issue on the RIF side. RIF rules cannot be expressed in RDF. How would one add RIF rules to an entailement regime if we wanted to cover RIF? It might be a showstopper for that case:-( Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 04:21:12 UTC