- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 22:00:15 -0400
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On May 10, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Birte Glimm wrote: >>> So even though in a sense this inferred graph is what they are >>> querying, we want to downplay that, since its identity URI, if any, is >>> not used in the language., >>> >>> Of course "InferredGraph" is a little odd when there's no entailment >>> regime being used, but maybe that's okay. Any other ideas? > > I agree that we shouldn't give the impression that the enriched graph > is what is being queried. This might be the case in many systems, but > to satisfy the ent. reg. you could also just partly materialise and do > some query rewriting etc., so the query is really a query for the > initial graph and materialisation is just a convenient implementation > technique. > > How about calling the enriched graph MaterializedInferencesGraph? It > is a bit longer and maybe not any better, but that's all the comes to > my mind at the moment. I don't think we've currently got a need to talk directly about the enriched graph (and therefore no need to name it with "MaterializedInferencesGraph"). I think your understanding here supports the idea that we describe the underlying graph along with an indication of any entailment regimes that apply to it (within the context of the service). .greg
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 02:00:47 UTC