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

Re: Implementations of entailment in F&R

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:43:13 -0400
Message-ID: <1fc9c2ff0907080743r68e19107ie24189aa345930c9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I'll send some text along to Kjetil.


On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Lee Feigenbaum<lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> Kendall Clark wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think it would be useful information, particularly since time
>> permitting is the limit, to include in F&R information about existing
>> implementations of OWL entailment in SPARQL.
>> Pellet is one such (with the SPARQL-DL that's been mentioned here) and
>> there may be others; but this seems relevant information and I can't
>> think of any good reasons why it shouldn't be included; if for no
>> other reason, it makes the "time permitting" and the "we must do
>> these" features more parallel and consistent.
> I agree.
> I think the intention was (and should be) to make all of the sections of the
> doc (both required & time-permitting) complete before we are finished
> publishing F&R.
> I'm sure the editors will appreciate any text & suggestions for the time
> permitted features (including existing implementations, examples, etc.) -
> the only stuff that's there right now are the brief descriptions that I
> wrote up so that they would be covered in FPWD.
> Lee

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 14:44:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC