W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Which API ?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:30:16 +0000
Message-Id: <8691A528-5ED2-4392-BF6B-B1CBC6C7FF42@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Pradeep Shankar <pradeep20081@googlemail.com>
On 24 Jan 2010, at 01:46, Pradeep Shankar wrote:
>  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.

Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 10:30:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:18 UTC