]> 2012-05-28T00:27:48-04:00 Alvaro Semantic Obligation Policies Jesse Weaver Section 4 says that the authors' notion of a graph pattern is borrowed from SPARQL, but before that they say that it is a set of triple patterns and that "a graph pattern can be used to represent a conjunctive query." This idea doesn't align with a SPARQL graph pattern but rather with a SPARQL '''basic''' graph pattern (a specific kind of SPARQL graph pattern; see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#GraphPattern for details). Similar to Greg's question, why wouldn't they want to allow other types of graph patterns in SPARQL, allowing for disjunction/alternation or inclusion of optional information? Consider the example in figure six. Wouldn't it be reasonable to include contact information for the employee (phone number, email, cube location... ''something'' to ensure the manager can approach the employee) ''if'' such information was available in the stream? Something like the SPARQL OPTIONAL graph pattern might be useful here, would it not? Alvaro Semantic Obligation Policies Question for the Presentation Jesse Weaver Question asked by Question asked Presentation Questions