Re: Naming (Re: Service Description document)

I don't see a need to talk about the enriched graph, but I thought
that this was the intention of the InferredGraph keyword.


On 10/05/2010, Gregory Williams <> wrote:
> 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

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:39:48 UTC