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

Re: Final text for Basic Graph Patterns

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:37:38 +0100
Message-Id: <AE2D8AB1-5A08-4F5B-8DF5-0048C2A150F5@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>


On 20 Jan 2006, at 07:28, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> On Jan 19, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2006, at 23:20, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> In my text, I am proposing to have an informative statement  
>>>> saying that a safe way to have a working SPARQL with OWL-DL  
>>>> entailment is to restrict the scoping set B to include only  
>>>> URIs, and to have the above syntactic restrictions to the SPARQL  
>>>> BGPs.
>>>
>>> Good idea, provided only that we don't use the official label  
>>> "OWL-DL" for this case which I think would be misleading. How  
>>> about just calling it "simple OWL" or maybe "basic OWL" or some  
>>> such qualification (?)
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> Ooo, the naming wars :)
>
> How about "OWL DL ABox query", or "OWL DL factual query", or "OWL  
> DL instance query"?

Basic OWL, or OWL factual query, or OWL instance query are all good  
for me. I don't like to introduce the ABox word here.

--e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:37:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT