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 09:42:38 +0100
Message-Id: <366A97EB-2625-400D-AAAF-DF37B3304504@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 1 May 2009, at 09:21, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 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:-)

Reassure. Reassure.

> 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.

That's fine. I'll say again that the ground work for most of this  
(i.e., from RDFS to OWL) was hashed out in the last WG. The hook and  
basic conceptual framework are "RDFS-OWL" ready. The implementations  
have specific, fairly common, behavior.

Marketing wise, I, perhaps optimistically, hope that it won't be a  
big deal. These are regimes, not required for all. The whole sparql  
community benefits from convergence and interoperability here. We all  
know that more regimes shall have to be defined (e.g., to cover  
different dialects of RIF) in the future.

One thing, as I've said, I hope to do is to set up a pattern for  
defining regimes so that it's easier to spec and approve them.  
Indeed, ideally (as I've said before), working groups defining  
"SPARQL accessible" languages or semantics should be the ones that  
rec those regimes. (After all, SPARQL *is* modular!)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:43:57 GMT

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