W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: bnodes

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:28:12 -0400
Message-ID: <f6ec8dcb0710021528q7988f9c2t14deb0dcbd9b9a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <rbg@talis.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org 

> Because they cause lots of problems and their semantics offer no
> gains. For example, with existential Bnodes sparql query answering
> for RDFS is *NP-Complete* in *DATA COMPLEXITY*.
> That should be a scarey fact for anyone interested in scalability.

But Bijan, this is only true if you have a requirement for RDFS
entailment as part of your matching mechanism.  There is nothing scary
about basic term-structure matching at *very* large volumes.

Chimezie
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 22:28:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:41:55 GMT