W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Response to comments of Enrico

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:32:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4B5FFA00.2060507@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
The sentence

It seems indeed not possible to implement an OWL 2 RL entailment regime
by using just SPARQL queries at least not with a linear query rewriting
if that is what you are referring to.

(though a bit too convoluted:-) made me think.

The point of the matter is that Enrico does not really state what he is
thinking about. Do you really believe he referred to implementing OWL 2
RL (or OWL 2 in general, for the matter) through query rewriting in
SPARQL? If this is really what his comment is on (I must admit that,
until I read your sentence, I did not realize that) than all his
comments are essentially irrelevant, aren't they, because the way OWL is
approached in this document has nothing to do with query rewriting. If
this is all correct, than I propose not to even go into the details of
the discussion on whether his particular entailment is correct or not,
just tell him that the way we envisage entailment in OWL is not related
to the query language proper, and that is it...



On 2010-1-26 23:12 , Birte Glimm wrote:
> Hi all,
> as agreed in today's teleconf, I drafted a response to Enrico, which I
> hope is k for the rest of the group:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:EF
> If you have any comments, please let me know,
> 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
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 08:31:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:59 UTC