- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:39:11 -0400
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I don't see a need to talk about the enriched graph, but I thought that this was the intention of the InferredGraph keyword. Birte On 10/05/2010, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> 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 Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:39:48 UTC