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

Re: "Summary for informed outsiders" - Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

From: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:19:31 +0100
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Cc: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Maurizio Lenzerini <lenzerini@dis.uniroma1.it>
Message-id: <5964D429-2ED5-4EE5-A53D-426F9B06197E@isti.cnr.it>

On Dec 22, 2010, at 21:25 , Birte Glimm wrote:

>>> What might be interesting to know for making an informed decision is
>>> whether Guido and
>>> Maurizio, for their practical applications, need non-tree-shaped nd-
>>> variables for their queries?
>> 
>> Assuming that I've got the point (sorry for not having much time to dedicate
>> to this) I can tell you that we don't impose any limitation to the way
>> existential variables could be used in conjunctive queries, so we could have
>> something like:
>> 
>> { x | bond(x), issued_by(x,y), head_by(y,z), owned_by(x,z), investigated(y)
>> }
> 
> It is not yet known whether such queries are decidable for OWL DL in
> general. OWL DL forbids, therefore such cyclic patterns. I.e.,
> although query answering in defined in OWL's conformnce document, your
> query is not in OWL DL and illegal for OWL's Direct Semantics. I don't
> think that we can remove this restriction for SPARQL queries given the
> unclear decidability, which was the motivation of putting it in place
> for OWL.
> 
> If you want to just treat y and z as projected out variables that's ok
> of course. Otherwise, you might have to work towards a conjunctive
> query entailment regime for OWL QL ontologies, where things are easier
> and decidability is known.
> 
> Birte
> 

Dear Birte,
working towards conjunctive query entailment regime for OWL QL ontologies is specific and may rise a question about what happens for other OWL profiles. Now, wouldn't it not be just easier and reasonable to have 

1. an OWL 2 "LITE" Direct semantics regime, which is the one in the draft so far (if you like so, you may omit the word "LITE")
2. an OWL 2 "FULL" Direct semantics regime, which is the one we would like to have and compliant with what is called (full) "Conjunctive Queries" ?


-Umberto Straccia








          ---------------------------------------------------
         |   Umberto Straccia, PhD                           |
         |   ISTI                                            | 
         |   Italian National Research Council               |
         |   Via G. Moruzzi,1                                |
         |   I-56124 Pisa (PI), ITALY                        | 
         | ------------------------------------------------  |
         | WWW   : http://www.straccia.info                  |
         | E-mail: Umberto.Straccia@isti.cnr.it              |
       / ) Phone : +39.050.315 2894                          (\
      /  ) Fax   : +39.050.315 3464                          ( \
   _ (  (|___    ___________________________________________ )  )_ 
   (((\  \)  /  )                                    /  )  /  /)))
   (\\\\  \_/  /                                     \  \_/  ////)      
    \         /                                       \         /                 
     \      _/                                         \_      /   
-----/     /---------------------------------------------\     \--------
    /     /                                               \     \ 
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 09:21:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT