W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:20:41 -0500
Message-Id: <6679f8c00787ff37796a9a59d69b7351@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On Jan 19, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

>> It is also true that the current state of the deployed art, suitable 
>> for standardization, is conjunctive abox query alone. There there is 
>> a wealth of theory (see ian's and sergio's and enrico's (and others') 
>> papers), several reasonably optimized implementations (Racer, Pellet, 
>> KAON2, with Racer and KAON2 being commercial...I guess Cerebra also 
>> does conjunctive abox query, and it is, of course, commercial, but 
>> I'm not very familiar for it).  Oh, various subsets of OWL DL (e.g., 
>> DL Lite) also fit this model. It would be nice to standards this 
>> level so that we can get interoperability between the 4 query 
>> implementation. (I imagine FaCT++ will have something soon).
> I'm happy with that as sufficient justification for focussing on this 
> case, but lets not call it 'OWL-DL', but something like OWL-Abox. 
> Clearly, this case is not obtained just by doing "simple"//"OWL-DL" in 
> the SPARQL definitions, with any wording of those definitions, so 
> there is still some work to do or at least to check. I don't trust 
> myself to be the judge for exactly how to couch the definitions to 
> describe this case accurately. Can you do that?

Sure. FUB can too :) What do we need for the current text? Or should we 
put this in an appendix (or a WG submission?)

Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:20:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC