- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:28:12 -0400
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <rbg@talis.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Because they cause lots of problems and their semantics offer no > gains. For example, with existential Bnodes sparql query answering > for RDFS is *NP-Complete* in *DATA COMPLEXITY*. > That should be a scarey fact for anyone interested in scalability. But Bijan, this is only true if you have a requirement for RDFS entailment as part of your matching mechanism. There is nothing scary about basic term-structure matching at *very* large volumes. Chimezie
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 22:28:21 UTC