RE: Re 2: [TF-ENT] Querying datasets with default plus named graphs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> Sent: 12 October 2009 23:45
> To: Birte Glimm
> Cc: Ivan Herman; SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Re 2: [TF-ENT] Querying datasets with default plus named graphs
> (catching up too slow recently ...  :-/)
> +1 to "identify the status as is (limited usefulness of named graphs)
> and pointers to solutions how this could be fixed (either as
> concrete suggestions for extension marked at risk or just an
> informative suggestion of future extensions)"

-1: this text is judging the issue.

It was not an objective of the TF to make datasets work with entailment (for some definition of "work" that has not been articulated).  Note: I want the mixed entailment case to work because that is deployed practice.

Let's note that BGP RDFS-entailment currently requires all the triples in the graph (it's most obvious given the informative RDFS Entailment Rules in RDF-MT anyway).  It would be something else (and useful) to have entailment work with a background vocabulary.  The rules entailment regime will give us that, maybe others, so I don't see there is a problem.

A graph in a dataset can be the union of other graphs in the dataset so having one graph as the union of vocabulary and data is already possible and done in practice but it's just not the only way that things can be setup.  It seems to me that we are trying to force one model of dataset for one situation on all possible uses, entailment and non-entailment related.


Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 07:52:15 UTC