- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:55:42 +0100
- To: "Libby Miller <Libby.Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> So, looking at > > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ > > and particularly the questions like > > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-query.n3 > > you're using n3 to describe an RDF graph and _interpreting_ > the graph as a query, is that right? like Pat Hayes said I think - an > RDF graph with a question-mark at the end? So the graph means something > different - a question, rather than a set of statements. right, exactly you that right, Pat explained very clearly > I like this approach very much for testing especially (though I'd use > N-triple rather than N3, there's not a big difference for something > like this I don't think). well I guess you meant ntriples with qnames as is currently provided in Jena 1.6 output, but indeed there's not a big difference > The only issue I can see is that queries > (although rarely in my experience) could have blank predicates, anbd > predicates can't be bnodes in RDF as far as I know. Do you think this > matters? well I can only speak based on my experience with the 227 testcases that we currently have spawned from http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5 and in there we haven't needed it, but you're right, we have to think about that... > For the results, cleverer backends might produce more results in for > the same query, and we'd have to take this into account for describing > the results. I see actually we have that either a single result (in the form of a proof or an explanation) is returned or all answers with the --think command line argument not very human readable, just to get an idea see http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5-proof.n3 where you could pay no attention to indented stuff -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:56:22 UTC