- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:12:08 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 10:37 -0400, Jim Hendler wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote (in response to Nokia's comment): > > > > > > 3) It does not seem possible to extend SPARQL to be > > used with OWL (primarily, perhaps, because of comment > > #1 above). > > A number of WG members (UMD, Agfa) are succesfully using SPARQL > with OWL. > > > > UMD is not willing to be listed as claiming that we are successfully > using SPARQL with OWL. Ooops. Sorry. I clearly got the wrong impression. Thanks for clarifying. > We are implementing numerous OWL based tools and making them coexist > with OWL, but that is quite a different thing. I do not see that > SPARQL gets us anything more significant in the OWL space than the RDF > graph queries for data or from the specific graphs that OWL > represents. However, that is a long way from "successfully using > SPARQL with OWL" and, as the SPARQL spec has evolved we have > considerably scaled back our expectations of the what SPARQL will do > for us. > We have continued to support the design of SPARQL because we do a > significant amount of work with respect to RDF triplestores and we > very much want to do distributed triple store linking, but we do not > consider SPARQL to be very useful for OWL as per Nokia's comments. > -JH > -- > Professor James Hendler Director > Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 > UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 (Fax) > College Park, MD 20742 > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/~hendler -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 15:12:20 UTC