- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:54:58 +0100
- To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
3.11 is fine for me. However, I think 3.10 is misleading. At least, I propose to remove the "Yes", we cannot generally do named graph and reason about named graphs, can we? i.e. I cannot write e.g. a rule which refers to triples intwo different named graphs in its body, can I? Actually, that is my suggestion for change: ======= 3.10 Is RIF useful for reasoning about the provenance of claims expressed in RDF, eg. multiple named graphs in SPARQL that offer competing accounts of some situation? Yes. If the differing named graphs are located in different web documents, then RIF with RDF compatibility (see [2]) has an import mechanism that can be directed to the specific web documents and reason about them. =======> 3.10 Is RIF useful for reasoning about the provenance of claims expressed in RDF, eg. multiple named graphs in SPARQL that offer competing accounts of some situation? If the differing named graphs are located in different web documents, then RIF with RDF compatibility (see [2]) has an import mechanism that can be directed to the specific web documents and reason about them. More refined notions of import that allow to modularly refer to facts from different imported documents could be covered in extended RIF dialects. ======= Axel -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 15:55:39 UTC