W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: [UCR] ISSUE-12 and ACTION6198 (semantic web rule language) - and also the SPARQL topic

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:07:25 +0000
Message-ID: <45A4202D.6030508@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: axel@polleres.net
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> Just one question, if we
> a) can show that SPARQL itself maps to a RIF dialect (which allows to 
> access RDF and OWL data) and calls of built-in functions like CXpath 
> functions etc. and
> 
> b) view SPARQLs CONSTRUCT queries as well as nothing else than a rule 
> dialect (at least the expressivity of SWRL, i.e. HORN over RDF/OWL atoms 
> is for sure covered with such construct queries)
> 
> then we solve both issues: the one of a semantic Web rules language
> (just using SPARQL CONSTRUCT as its syntax and interchange with other 
> rules on top of RDF enabled via its RIF version)

Sorry, I don't quite understand that.

First, SPARQL query was just an example of what you might want in a 
semantic web rule language.

Second, this discussion was about whether all RIF dialects are 
automatically semantic web rule languages and the fact that the working 
group doesn't want to endorse a specific semantic web dialect. You seem 
to be proposing a specific dialect.

> and the one how to 
> integrate SPARQL queries in conditions semantically (one could still 
> view it as a blackbox as well, of course, but SPARQL queries would be 
> equally definable as part of an extended rule set.)
> 
> I have made an attempt on this which I also posted to this list some 
> time before Christmas, see :
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0002

It has been suggested to me that there are differences between the 
semantics of SPARQL assumed there and what's in the current spec but I'm 
afraid I haven't studied the proposal enough myself yet to properly 
comment on the details.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2007 23:07:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT