- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:30:16 +0000
- To: Pradeep Shankar <pradeep20081@googlemail.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 24 Jan 2010, at 01:46, Pradeep Shankar wrote: [snip] > What I understood about SPARQL is that - it is just able to query > over RDF. When SPARQL makes query over OWL, it does not provide > entailed results. I also want to achieve entailed results. So which > query language I should use? The picture is more complicated. SPARQL 1.0 does not provide for any semantics beyond roughly "Graph matching", though it does not say what the graph is. Thus, if you query against some rules closure of some RDF graph, you may (if you are careful in the set up) get the same answers as querying against a "live" reasoner. SPARQL also has a hook, entailment regimes, which allow spec authors to add additional semantics. The current SPARQL working group is doing this for a wide range of semantic web languages (at least RDF- OWL). Some of the OWL stuff is based on SPARQL/DL which is implemented (with various tweaks and extensions) in Pellet. Thus, you can indeed use SPARQL. > In order to realize this idea what API or framework I should use, > such that I can use reasoning power of OWL, SWRL, > and possibly query over the asserted knowledge. A lot depends on your system requirements and flexibility. But SPARQL is workable (at least with Pellet if you want the largest language coverage; various fragements will have more implementations). The OWL API is workable. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 10:30:27 UTC