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

Re: Lee's feature proposal

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:10:42 +0100
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <F0F274DE-DB8E-40BA-B52B-AB32C4E9E36B@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 1 May 2009, at 08:59, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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?

I'm not really hot on the logical underpinnings, but I don't remember  
running into any substantial problems when applying SPARQL over RDFS.  
There are some questions around how you handle certain queries that  
theoretically have infinite solutions, but there are pragmatic  
workarounds for those. I'm confident that whatever solution SPARQL/OWL  
proposes here will be applicable to SPARQL/RDFS.

> I presume service descriptions play an important role here.

I would imagine so.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:11:17 GMT

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