Hi Andy, in a first glance, the problem stated in my email of 16/July is a non-issue. However, I will see again. I have some doubts if a SPARQL command can produce new data that can be false when new deductions are performed. I will deepen my study and, if necessary, prepare a show case.
My next steps, will be try to hook sparql commands with rule terms in a rule. Miguel On 21 Jul 2014, at 16:22, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > On 19/07/14 00:10, Miguel Bento Alves wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I did a new update in my repository (https://github.com/mbentoalves/jena). I >> implemented Sparql commands in rules in hybrid and forward mode. Now, we can >> define sparql commands in rules in all engine modes (backward, forwardRETE, >> hybrid, forward). Rules with a sparql command only can have 1 body term, the >> sparql command himself. I removed the constraint that a rule with a sparql >> command only can have 1 term in the head. Therefore, it is possible >> something like: >> (\\\sparql >> Select ?x ?z >> where {?x <eg:p> ?y . ?y <eg:p> ?z .} >> \\\sparql) -> (?x <eg:p1> ?z) (?z <eg:p2> ?x). >> >> (only in forward mode, of course, because backward mode doesn't allow more >> than 1 head term). >> >> Next, I will try to hook a sparql command with other terms in a rule. >> >> Miguel >> > > Miguel, > > Now it works with the RETE engine, is the issue of executing SPARQL queries > once (email of 16/July) a non-issue? > > Andy >
