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

Re: Lee's feature proposal

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 10:21:28 +0200
Message-ID: <49FAB108.4070204@w3.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>


Steve Harris wrote:
> 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.

And that is what my intuition also tells me! But I would still prefer
some reassuring words from Bijan:-)

We also have to be very careful on the 'packaging' of these, and make it
very clear from the start that we try to cover the whole palette of
RDFS+OWL.


ivan

> 
>> I presume service descriptions play an important role here.
> 
> I would imagine so.
> 
> - Steve
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:21:45 GMT

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