- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:35:09 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, dreer@fh-furtwangen.de
On Jun 22, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] >> That's the point, right? Queries that you might expect to return the >> same results on that data *don't* depending on the semantics you >> have for the *data*. Of course your query language might be (will >> be!) more expressive than your data language (see SQL). > > No! As I showed in an earlier email, the ground Key is the slipping in of "ground". > entailments for both > semantics are *equivalent* and thus the queries would return the same > result. Of course, RDF entailment includes existential generalization, so that's not quite right. There seems to be more work that you need to do to get what you wanted (e.g., you need to look at the semantics of the query language; is the query "not" classical? how would that classical not interact with the LP semantics?) Related question, what to do about BNodes? I hate them too, but they are there and often heavily used. They throw existentials all over the place, which pushes us out of plain ole datalog. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 18:35:11 UTC