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

Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:44:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF50DB8.7030807@thefigtrees.net>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 11/30/2010 9:37 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> Any OWL-QL or OWL-EL implementation by design incorporates OWL Direct Semantics in the manner I'm proposing.
> I'm too lazy to list them all.
> Many of them are used in real world applications such as banking, database integration, medical applications, etc.
> cheers
> --e.

Hi Enrico,

Thanks. I'm specifically interested in anyone doing SPARQL in the 
context of OWL direct semantics. Are you aware of any implementations 
doing this?


> On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:29, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 9:20 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>> Be surprised: the academic, industry, and system people working on OWL-QL-based systems are already very upset by the limitation of the current version of the standard, and asked me to discuss the matter with the group.
>>>> Finally, since it's so well defined and understood its not like if it becomes suddenly known useful that there'd be any barrier to implementations picking it up.
>>> I fail to understand this argument. Why are we standardising something, if it is already well known? Maybe to facilitate interoperability of acknowledged technologies? :-)
>> Hi Enrico,
>> Are there existing implementations of SPARQL that incorporate OWL Direct Semantics in the manner you're proposing?
>> Bijan, Birte -- do the systems that you're familiar with currently implement SPARQL with OWL Direct Semantics in the manner that's in the current entailment document, or is it not yet implemented at all?
>> thanks,
>> Lee
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:44:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:02 UTC