W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: OWL and LOD

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:48:28 -0400
Cc: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0623C24C-24ED-4A93-9D9D-3FA80F5D9A39@w3.org>
To: "John Goodwin" <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
I agree adding more OWN by degrees is a good idea.

But what, John, would you mean by "mandate".

Do you mean "When  I have said something about a class in OWL I'm  
happy for your to hold me to it",
or "When  I have said something about a class in OWL, anyone calling  
themselves a Link Data client would be required to make the inferences  
from it."?

When you go down the latter path people run screaming.
There is some movement toward defining a category of agent which does  
certain things such as RDFS, IFP, FP, sameAs (like Tabulator) and  
adding some more limited OWL as you describe, possibly having more  
than one

- Does anyone have an SPARQL server software which stores a set of  
triples and queries automatically the (virtual) OWL-x closure of  
them?  (Ora's Wilbur engine did this with RDFS)

- If that functionality is done in a federated SPARQL system, do we  
just expect inference within each server, or can one form some form  
cross-linking allowing a OWL-aware query of two large separate datasets?

Tim

On 2009-05 -12, at 06:55, John Goodwin wrote:
>
>> I think there's a real question about whether you want data
>> providers mandating entailment regimes over their data
>
> Maybe to some extent. I'd like to make it clear what I mean by a  
> certain
> class and/or property in an ontology, and hence I would mandate
> entailment based on that...but I'd also be happy with other people to
> add extra (logically consistent?!) entailment regimes on top of  
> those if
> necessary.
>
> John
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT