W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

#swig discussion Re: considering new issues: rdfSemantics, owlIntegration, owlDisjunction

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:52:18 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1126194738.4430.119.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 08:18 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Given recent discussion and comments, I'm inclined to add
> three issues to our issues list...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

FYI, I seem to have gotten TimBL's attention on these
issues in #swig.

Feel free to join in now or read later...

recent feedback on SPARQL
http://swig.xmlhack.com/2005/09/08/2005-09-08.html#1126194443.554258


> rdfSemantics -- should queries of equivalent graphs
> give the same answers? Any practical advice about queries
> over infinite graph such as all the RDF axiomatic triples?
> 
> owlIntegration -- some explicit explanation of how OWL integrates
> with SPARQL seems worthwhile.
> 
> owlDisjunction -- the worker example evidently doesn't work
> well with SPARQL as of the 21 July 2005 LCWD. Are there
> mature designs that work better? At a minimum, we should
> be explicit that we don't handle this.
> 
> Are those reasonably good issue names and descriptons?
> The descriptions are easier to change than the names, btw.
> Is that too many or too few issues to cover recent discussions?
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:52:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT