Re: [TEST] simple SPARQL condition and SNAF condition

Dear All,

The issue Jos has raised with his suggestion to include builtin
metapredicates like findall in the RIF condition language is, in my
opinion, that of grouping (and implicitely aggregation) in both SPARQL
and RIF.

These are by no means sdimple issues, whatver examples might let think.
These are difficult semantics and evaluation issues, and also (often
neglected) language design issues. They are in my opinion as difficult
as nonmonotonic negation.

I feel a bit concerned that the RIF might include metapredicates like
findall in its condition language without these issues being properly
worked out - in RIF and SPARQL.

Regards,

Francois

>>> unifies ?ANSWER with a list that contains all the
>>> instantiations of ?SELECT satisfying the ?WHERE
>>> clause in the ?SCOPE of all asserted n3 formulae
>>> and their log:conclusion""";
>>>   a rdf:Property;
>>>   rdfs:domain log:Formula;
>>>   rdfs:range rdf:List.
>>>
>>> I mean useful for 2 reasons
>>> 1/ it is a way to have a simple SPARQL condition
>>> 2/ it is a way to have a SNAF condition when used as
>>>    ?SCOPE e:findall (?SELECT ?WHERE rdf:nil).
>>>
>>> There is a test case result at
>>> http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2006/02swap/medicE.n3
>>>       
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 14:31:33 UTC