- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:45:48 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Thorsten Liebig <liebig@derivo.de>, "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
I concur with Bijan. 2c, -Alan On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > Aha. > > One thing I WOULD suggest is supporting normal BGP patterns as well, so as to have a compliant mode. This shouldn't be TOO huge an implementation burden relative to what you've done. > > Then I would explain on the front page that you offer two syntaxes: Standard SPARQL BGP and a more OWL user friendly MSish based syntax. (It's not really MS syntax...my memory failed! :) That' the abstract syntax. A MS based one perhaps would be better since it would allow cnp between e.g., protege's DL Query tab and your implementation.) > > I would suggest that we build an online converter between the two. > > We should think a bit about the wire protocol issues and perhaps service descriptions. > > In short, let's address whatever issues there are rather than create a new suite of issues by generating a new name! > > Cheers, > Bian. >
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 16:47:26 UTC