We Don’t Need No Stinkin Rules

SPARQL CONSTRUCT as rules announces the inclusion in julie of SPARQL-CONSTRUCT based rule-like processing for the creation of additional statements to be added to julie.

Basically, the syntax hasn’t changed much:

^q CONSTRUCT {?p2 ?prop ?p. } WHERE { ?prop rdf:type <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#SymmetricProperty>. ?p ?prop ?p2. } returns:
Total of 542 statements: Here’s the first three.
{(r0_r1114530965r33008), [http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/colleagueOf], (r0_r1114530965r32995)}, {(r0_r1114530965r32998), [http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/colleagueOf], (r0_r1114530965r32995)},
{(r0_r1114689381r708), [http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/colleagueOf], (r0_r1114530965r32995)}.

This is to let you know what you’re getting yourself into. For example, you probably don’t want to add the rdfs:subClassOf relationship for everything: you’d be dealing with a heck of a lot of statements, enough to trap the bot for hours. Here, we can see that it’s a relatively reasonable subset of the model, so we can pass this construct result into the model:

21:33:35 < julie> Created 542 statements based on CONSTRUCT query: Model size changed by 481.

You can see the queries and results in context in #swig logs.

I’d be interested to hear how people think this could be used, or if it’s useful in a more general sense. Would it be better to simply provide a temporary URI where people could fetch the data? Hm, that sounds almost like a useful service – POST data, get back a URI and some data after having parsed the data and stored it in a local location. Wonder if I’m the only person who could use that…

Comments are closed.