Re: SPARQL* evaluation semantics and RDF* semantics

This sounds like a good thing to have, but I'm not prepared to say that it is
a must-have.

peter


On 1/25/21 5:15 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> in the discussions about RDF* semantics, I have made an assumption which I
> want to check with the community before going further.
>
> I assume that we want the SPARQL* evaluation semantics and the RDF*
> model-theoretic semantics to be aligned, i.e. consistent with each other.
>
> In other words, given two RDF* graphs G1 and G2,
> whenever the MT semantics says that G1 entails G2,
> any SPARQL* compliant system containing G1 should return true on the query
> "ASK { ... }" where "..." is a SPARQL* representation of G2.
>
> FTR: this is currently the case for RDF simple entailment and SPARQL.
>
> What's your position about that?
>
>