- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:24:43 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[snip] > We're discussing a case akin to an editor manipulating an RDF graph but > generally I would have thought that update usually applies to the base data, > not the entailments drawn from it. It probably makes more sense. My point is that we haven't really thought about this and we don't define updates with no-simple entailments in this round of SPARQL, but this decision basically fixes the options. I don't see having bnodes in DELETE statements with no re-use across BGPs/template as bad, it seems nice for the lists issue and it doesn't force a decision now on which semantics updates under non-simple entailments will have. So I am inclined to prefer this version as opposed to just forbidding bnodes. > When working with encoding of the ontology, the app is dealing with the RDF > in as an encoding so only simple entailment is needed and quite possible > makes more sense surely? > Could well be, but I haven't spend much thought on that yet. Birte > Andy > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 19:25:18 UTC