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

Re 2: [TF-ENT] OWL Direct Semantics added

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:41:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4B0BD471.6020405@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, greg@evilfunhouse.com
Birte,

(I cc Greg explicitly, because that is directly relevant to the service
description part which is his baby...:-)

another issue that, at some point, we will have to address... though
this is probably not part of the entailment document per se...

The issue is how a system broadcasts to the world that it can or cannot
handle certain profiles. From your document's point of view it is of
course correct to say that EL, QL and RL profiles are automatically
handled by referring to the Direct and RDF-compatible semantics. But
somehow, somewhere, I as a user would like to know whether a specific
endpoint can handle, say, EL only and not the full Direct Semantics (ie,
the DL profile, so to say). My gut feeling is that we may have to have
some extra vocabulary in the service description part...

Ivan

Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have added a section about OWL Direct Semantics:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml
> 
> I am not really happy with the work-around for querying for
> annotations, but it seems users really want to query for them and
> Direct Semantics simply ignores annotations. I am happy about any
> feedback/alternative suggestions for that and for any other parts of
> the section.
> 
> Birte
> 
> 

-- 

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 Tuesday, 24 November 2009 12:41:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT