Re: RDF and OWL compatibility

Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> or, if
>> named graphs are also to be supported,
>> true(s,p,o,g) or true(triple(s,p,o),g)
>> (the latter form has been used in the
>> Semantic Web rule language TRIPLE [1], where
>> this mapping also covered substantial parts of
>> RDFS semantics).
> 
> 
> This is clearly a separate question.
> 
> The possible need for named graph support does arise in the charter 
> through the requirement for SPARQL compatibility. Again we should 
> separate the putative SPARQL compatibility requirement (ability to match 
> against triples in named graphs) from possible solutions (quads as you 
> suggest, or a function which issues a SPARQL query, or an explicit 
> notion of multiple KBs in the rule language itself).
> 
> Dave

So, then why not tackle RDF(S) and SPARQL compatibility at once?

As we all know a large parts of SQL (except e.g. aggregates) can be
translated to Datalog, i.e. rules. (BTW: there are extensions of rule 
languages by aggregates and also implemented systems for this as well to 
capture even more of SQL).

So, wouldn't be the right way to go for us in terms of SPARQL 
compatibility to similarly identify the kind of (deductive) rules 
capturing SPARQL and identify where the limits of such a normative 
translation of SPARQL queries into rules are which at first glance
seems a quite straightforward way to go, but maybe I overlook some major 
obstacles here, which I would be glad to hear from the fellow WG 
members, especially those involved in the SPARQL WG!

  Having this normative translation we can treat SQARQL queries nativley 
in the RIF rule language instead of the need to interface with SPARQL.

Thanks,
axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute - DERI Innsbruck
Institute of Computer Science, University of Innsbruck
+43-512-507/6486               Axel.Polleres@deri.org
http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 15:51:39 UTC