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

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

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:11:34 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0911240911x11c9ee22n3a830206280a6b68@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, greg@evilfunhouse.com
2009/11/24 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> 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

Yes, that would definitely be nice, but I think on the entailment
regimes telecon we agreed that an exact specification could also be
left open for now. Systems can add something to their service
descriptions indication what profile they support, but it is not
necessarily standardised. Much in the same way as systems already
support aggregates, but only now the most popular and established
aggregaton functions are standardised. If Greg wants to add something
in that direction, I am happy to work on that with him.
Birte

>
> 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
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 17:17:36 GMT

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