Andy,

Thx. Frank and I work together on this so all these notes had the same 
origin. To summarize:

1. it's reasonable to use rdfs:member as a predicate
2. the current ARQ behavior of eliminating rdfs:member triples is a bug
3. I can disable the behavior when using tdb.tdbquery either with an 
assembler or a Java wrapper - both require calling some Java code

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman 


DE, PPM Chief Architect

IBM Software, Rational 

Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube







From:
Andy Seaborne <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Date:
06/15/2011 12:54 PM
Subject:
Re: ARQ Treatment of rdfs:member





On 15/06/11 17:16, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> I'd appreciate your views on an issue my dev org is running into. At
> Rational we are planning to use rdfs:member as a generic membership
> predicate, e.g. to indicate membership of resources in any set, not
> necessarily an RDF Container. However, the default behavior of ARQ is to
> compute rdfs:member using inference rules applied to the container
> membership predicates rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc. and it in fact ignores 
explicit
> rdfs:member triples.
>
> RDF Schema inference rules should always add triples. However, the 
default
> behavior of ARQ ignores explicit rdfs:member triples. This seems like a
> bug.

See reply to Frank.

> I understand we can turn off this ARQ behavior in Java code. Is there a
> way to do this using command line args to tdb.tdbquery?

Not without getting it to call some java code, which is possible via 
assemblers initialization code.  It's not exposes as a setting feature 
on the command line directly.

One simple way for now though is to write a Java wrapper around 
tdb.tdbquery that calls ARQ.init(), makes the change, then calls 
tdb.tdbquery.main(...)

>
> What do you think is the intended use of rdfs:member, and how is it used
> in practice? Thx.

I've not seen it used explicitly but there is no reason why it can't be 
from SPARQL and ARQ point-of-view.

Presumably, it just falls out in the rules anyway - it's just a triple 
is explicitly asserted and logically inferred.

                 Andy

>
> Regards,
> 
___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Arthur Ryman
>
>
> DE, PPM Chief Architect
>
> IBM Software, Rational
>
> Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077
> Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
>
>
>
>



Reply via email to