- From: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:43:23 +0000
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, "public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Aug 2024, at 14:27, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote: > Yes, I know this is tricky without entailment, but I have shown a way - combining an unambiguous definition of rdfs:asserts (it expects the triple term to be true in the graph) with the annotation syntax (which captures that expectation) and a configuration of SPARQL-star (to map BGP over a union of triples and rdfs:stated triple terms). Thomas, I don't understand why you want to emulate the missing entailments (that you don't want in RDFS) within basic SPARQL. Eventually, the complexity will be the same as having it natively in RDFS. As a matter of facts, you want to implement part of typical RDFS reasoning in SPARQL (but not in simple entailment). And why do you believe that your use case deserves this special bizzarre and non-standard treatment, as oppsed to, say, rdfs:subClassOf, which seems to me much more important that rdfs:asserts. --e.
Received on Friday, 23 August 2024 12:43:31 UTC