- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:07:03 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 19 Jan 2010, at 14:37, Dave Reynolds wrote: > The original comment was about importing RDF into RIF, you are talking > the about the reverse and I don't think any of this relates directly to > the public comment. > > I, for one, don't understand the motivation of what you are trying to do > here and so find it hard to comment on the options. What is the value if > specifying import of RIF into RDF when we have no RDF representation of > RIF? > > How would this help SPARQL? I would have thought what SPARQL needs is a > notion of an entailment regime that can be specified by a RIF document. > That seems rather different from importing a RIF document into an RDF graph. > > Dave For one, true, that's not the public comments concern, I guess just the subject line made me jump on that topic again. For the latter... why do I need that for SPARQL: SPARQL BGP matching extensions are defined in terms of RDF graphs, not in terms of RIF rulesets. There is no simple way to define a RIF semantics for SPARQL (at least I couldn't think of any) without having a pointer from a graph to a RIF document. The extension I suggested in the second mail seems to me small enough (but still probably too late to get in in the documents... I would be happy enough to suggest something like this in a WG note which we could later pick up in the SPARQL WG.) ... Summarizing, such an import mechanism would make life much easier for me :-) plus I think it is quite useful. Axel
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 15:07:39 UTC