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

Re: "OWL" Entailment

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 18:23:22 +0100
Message-Id: <F24EF8A4-FC4A-49FD-A60A-F4A87E54F8A8@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 6 May 2009, at 18:14, Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip -- yay fat-fingering]

> I'll also note that the answers to these questions that I propose  
> make specing Simple, RDF, RDFS,

D-entailment (all flavors), and all OWL profiles quite easy. These  
answers are the same for all of them to get a reasonable (and  
interoperable) entailment regime. Basically, you end up with a set of  
groundings for any query such that

OH! That gives me the 5)

5) What do you do with "out of scope" queries?

	So, does a query to an OWL DL ontology have to be OWL DL? What  
happens if it isn't?

anyway...

You end up with a set of queries (all possible groundings of the  
query into the legal solutions). The queries that are entailed give  
you all and only the answers that you must return (for a sound and  
complete answer).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:19:29 GMT

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