W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Simple Rules in Sesame

From: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 07:21:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4A012C70.5070906@uni-koblenz.de>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@knublauch.com>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1

Hi Holger,

I think my formulation was misleading. I should have qualified that 'powerful'.
NetworkedGraphs are more expressive as a rules/view mechanism.

Although constraint checking could be done, it is definitely more combersome
than with SPIN. Also, we do not have the nice design tools and GUI machinery
around it.

So, I id not want to say a is better than b. I guess both are very interesting
with slightly different purposes.

>> The implementation evaluates rules on the fly instead of materializing
>> the results.
> This is an implementation detail and "SPIN" could do that too. Regarding
> the spin:rule property, SPIN simply defines a *formalism* for capturing
> such rules in a suitable place.  However, all SPIN rules can be made
> global by inserting class matching clauses that bind ?this into the
> beginning of the WHERE clause. An alternative SPIN implementation could
> take these CONSTRUCTs and push them onto the server for server-side
> evaluation, similar to what you describe in your Networked Graphs
> implementation.

Sure. Analogously, NGs could be precomputed.

> Having said this, I am very interested in your work and it seems to be
> nicely complementary technology to what SPIN offers.

I like SPIN as well. Thought about adopting the RDF Syntax for SPARQL. Then we
could modify view definitions from within views. Spooky.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 06:22:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC