- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:33:39 +0100
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
On 9 Apr 2008, at 20:00, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote: > > just to add some support to this thread > 1 - i am strongly supportive of this need for having simple > understandable descriptions of at least one kind of user we believe > should use each fragment. > 2 - on the 3 points below, if i had 2 and 3 below, i would use them > right away. I.e., if you had a scalable system, that would drive your choice here :) > my restatement of what i would use today would be: > > 2a Creating inference graphs from RDF data by performing rule-based > forward chaining thus making information that is implicit in the > rdf explicit in the rdf graph. I don't know why this is a desiderata for *any* user. It seems very implementation oriented to me. > 3a Efficiently querying the resulting inference RDF graph with > standard web query languages including SPARQL. But this specifies an implementation technique. What do you care if your sparql queries are evaluated by computing a bigger rdf graph instead of some other technique as long as you get the same answers for acceptable resource consumption? In other words, I thought the missing bit wasn't about the computational properties (Carsten's did a good job), it's about the "fit" of the expressivity. I agree that this is a hard think to describe. So, one (sorta false and not super *duper* useful) description of this sort is that EL++ is designed for TBox heavy, structurally complex ontologies (such as biomedical ones) and DL-Lite can handle conceptual models and thus relational database federation. (Note that there's nothing wrong with being concerned with performance!) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 20:31:50 UTC