W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > May 2009

Re: OWL and LOD

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:40:49 +0100
Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DA9E5D34-EDE1-48E4-889F-4555AEA018D0@garlik.com>
To: "John Goodwin" <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
On 12 May 2009, at 11:26, John Goodwin wrote:
>
>> If I could be sure that my SPARQL query environment would use
>> OWL reasoning to fill in the gaps in its knowledge, then I'd
>> be more inclined to publish OWL data. But right now there is
>> a dearth of high-quality, widely-used OWL implementations.
>
> Well there are implementations of SPARQL-DL (e.g. Pellet) but most
> SPARQL endpoints I know do tend to just do RDFS reasoning (if that).
> Maybe demand will drive more implementations?
>
> I know there is a new SPARQL working group - is there much talk of OWL
> inference + SPARQL going on there?

Yes, there is. That doesn't directly address the problem of how you  
run a OWL-DL reasoner over even medium sized datasets (say, one  
gigatriple). As far as I know that is an unsolved problem, though I  
could well be out of date in that front.

My understanding is that the issues around SPARQL/OWL are to do with  
how you get consistent results across OWL reasoners, and how you  
represent certain types of entailment in SPARQL results.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 10:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:20 UTC