- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:24:13 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Jos De Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Below I forward some thought from jos on this with his consent: @jos: can you ealborate what exactly you mean here: > 2- the RDF(S) semantics gives you more than just blank nodes. in how far is this a (potential) problem? Axel > ============================================================================ > On 2010-02-24 12:07, Axel Polleres wrote: > > > > On 24 Feb 2010, at 11:04, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > >> On 2010-02-24 11:28, Axel Polleres wrote: > >>> Hi Jos, > >>> > >>> Can you check this briefly and tell me whether I don't oversimplify > >>> things here? > >> > >> I will have a more detailed look at it later on, but a few first comments: > >> - you do not consider equality between data values, e.g. > >> "1"^^int="1"^^decimal > > > > hmmm, I am at the moment, not sure how far this is a problem, but I definitly should include this in the issues! > > > > > >> - I did not see how a minimal model for RIF-RDF combinations is defined, > >> in particular I see no blank nodes or RDF(S) semantics > > > > ? Can't we just treat them as skolem constants? We are just interested in query answering... > > 1- if you treat blank nodes as skolem constants you need to say so. > 2- the RDF(S) semantics gives you more than just blank nodes. > > > if you agree, I forward your comments to SPARQL, ok? > > Sure. > > > Jos
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 11:24:48 UTC