W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2005

Re: [SKOS, SPARQL, ALL] Closure and SPARQL

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:39:27 +0100
Message-Id: <E6A092F1-22D7-4D3D-BEBB-5B022DBC9E7A@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, "David Wood" <dwood@softwarememetics.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: Christoffel Dhaen <christoffel@landcglobal.com>

On 12 Dec 2005, at 15:23, Christoffel Dhaen wrote:
> HasPet subPropertyOf Likes
> Person subClassOf Animal
> Woman subClassOf Person
> OldLady subClassOf Woman
> OldLady HasPet Cat
> Cat subClassOf Animal
> A query
> (X subClass Person) AND (X Likes Animal)
> gives the answer
> {X= OldLady}
> This takes the class-hierachy into account, as wel as the property  
> hierachy.
> Unless I have I missed this somewhere, according to the  
> specifications, the query on this graph would not give this result  
> and the resultset would be empty.
> I would say "simple RDf entailment" and "RDF entailment" entailment  
> as you point out in 2) should be possible on the same graph, but I  
> got the impression that this is not possible.
> 1) can be resolved by doing a minus between the entailment and the  
> simple entailment results.

According to the current state of discussion in the DAWG, the use of  
"simple RDF entailment" and "RDF entailment" is possible and it would  
actually capture what you want as you point out.

Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 14:41:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:15 UTC