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

Re: Signalling entailment in queries

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:14:52 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimsZG8LYLQRUM+uOpoYcGRSRLphQXfmGN+AB5K_@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> My concern then returns to whether SD for ER makes sense.  Kendall says pellet server has its own SD they are happy with, for ER, so that makes me fairly optimistic.

Here's a pointer to the thing Sandro references:

http://ps.clarkparsia.com/

That will return a JSON representation of the SD resource for that
(demo) version of PelletServer.

Con-neg for RDF/XML or Turtle will give you those representations of
that resource. The schema for this stuff is at

http://ps.clarkparsia.com/schema/pellet-server-schema

This SD only partially overlaps w/ the SD for SPARQL, in that ours
treats SPARQL as one of several services that it has to be describe,
including also OWL reasoning, semantic search, machine learning, and
some other stuff we include in PelletServer. (Note, though, that with
respect to that laundry list of stuff, the demo instance above is
incomplete and only describes resources related to SPARQL query,
search, and some OWL reasoning.)

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Monday, 2 August 2010 14:15:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT