- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@urjc.es>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:31:14 +0100
- To: Hassan Aït-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Hassan Aït-Kaci wrote: >> >> hmm... only one Atom in the 'then' part. That's >> weaker than SPARQL's CONSTRUCT, if I'm reading this >> correctly. That seems kinda odd. > > > This is meant to represent only Horn clauses, Dan. BTW: if you want to model full SPARQL construct, you need a lot beyond RIF Core, so SPARQL coverage is, I guess rather a phase 2 thing. if you restrict yourself to basic graph patterns and *bnode-free* CONSTRUCT parts, then you can well translate SPARQL's construct into RIF, see no prob here, you can just split of multiple triples patterns in the SPARQL CONSTRUCT part to multiple rules with the same body. Anyway, I think we should define a RIF dialect which covers SPARQL, as pointed out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0058 already, as I think it would be kinda nice to have a SPARQL like exchange syntax for RIF rules on top of RDF data. axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres email: axel@polleres.net url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 16:31:27 UTC