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: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:27:03 -0500
Message-Id: <ba7df499ab02809392ea3cb79f15fe8c@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>

On Jan 21, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:

> 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.

I'm groovin' to that oldie alright.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 14:27:07 GMT

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