I'm wondering if it's acceptable to have multiple sm:next from a single module. It appears to run fine, but I'm wondering if it could introduce unpredictable behavior or anything like that. (See picture).
The reason I want to do this, is because: module A produce some triples I then wanna do some spin-rules on those triples, requiring some other imports. But at the same time, I want the end-result to contain: - The triples A produce - The inferred triples - NOT the imports (but the imports is required by the inferring step) If I just route everything through the spin-module, I get too much(I'm getting the imported triples too). Setting the replace=true for the ApplySpin-module, gives me too little(I'm then missing the triples passed as input, and only get the output of the SPINs). By passing the output-triples directly to my-end-result, in addittion to sending them to the spin-module, with replace=true turned on, seemingly gives me the correct results. Just wondering if I break some holy SM covenant in doing this. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
