Re: asn of "current diagram"

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 17:31 +0100, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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.


There's a lot of SPARQL stuff that I'm not interested in...
I was just thinking of rules a la

 graph-pattern => graph-pattern.

But I can see how existentials (bnodes) in the conclusion are tricky.

> 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.

Yes, interesting idea.

> axel
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 22:04:22 UTC