W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Lee's feature proposal

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:14:50 +0100
Message-Id: <B57A01A6-3284-44E4-A556-0154B9B655FD@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 1 May 2009, at 08:59, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hey Lee,
>
> I see you have decided to live dangerously:-)
>
> I have a clarification question which is as much to Bijan as to you
> (hence adding Bijan explicitly to the cc list) and that is related to
> SPARQL/OWL. From a user point of view, there is actually a palette of
> semantics that SPARQL users may want to use if they want to get away
> from the simple graph semantics. This includes RDFS, RDFS+D  
> Entailement,
> OWL also has 'species', because

I don't think profiles matter. The superset defines the subset  
semantics and it's easy to characterize the subsets.

[snip]
> It is not clear to me (lack of my technical knowledge!) whether  
> Bijan's
> SPARQL/OWL proposal covers both semantics of OWL or not. OWL DL is, in
> many respect, a loose sub thing to OWL Full, so it might, but we  
> have to
> be very explicit (at charter time, too!). So it would be good to  
> put my
> mind at ease:-) How would we handle the others like RDFS?

RDFS style semantics is somewhat easier to specify since all  
syntactic categories are reflected as individuals. Thus, "normal"  
binding works without difficulty. For the DL fragment, the key issue  
was how to handle nominally higher order variables (e.g., variables  
that range over classes). This is what SPARQL-DL solved.

I'm happy to do the whole stack. The work Jos (among others) has done  
in RIF points the way pretty clearly there.

> I presume service descriptions play an important role here.

I don't see why.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:11:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT