- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:47:59 +0100
- To: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 12/6/05, Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net> wrote: I suspect Peter has a different point of view that I on this, but for what it's worth: > A thought about "those were not the results I expected" and SPARQL... > > One of the bad things about the various implementations of classical SQL is > that they have divergent semantics -- that is, they can produce different > results given the same query and data. Quite. Although the idea that a store should include inferred triples in response to a query is appealing, I think the problems are likely to outweigh the benefits. I'm sure we will continue to see plenty of RDF-only stores, so the only way systems could operate consistently would be at that level - i.e. the query will only be over the statements explicitly asserted. I don't know how straightforward that is to capture formally (Peter?) but pragmatically I'm not sure there's much choice. But this doesn't rule out the potential for stores to provide extra query endpoints, e.g. http://example.org/query http://example.org/apply-class-subsumption-then-query http://example.org/apply-rdfs-rules-then-query http://example.org/apply-owl-rules-then-query Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2005 10:41:21 UTC