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: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:16:37 +0100
Message-Id: <D85BA274-AEF1-4B23-A5DC-76D72051245D@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>


On 20 Jan 2006, at 19:54, Pat Hayes 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"?
>
> I like them best in reverse order. "A-box" seems jargony and  
> "instance" is more precise than "factual". How about "OWL DL data  
> query"? Or is that getting a little too down-to-earth?

fine for me.
--e.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 14:16:53 GMT

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