- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:29:45 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 16:30:20 UTC
A possible answer to one of my questions:-) Ivan Herman wrote: > > ----- OWL-R ----- > > > Also, I also do not understand why the following is true: > > "Compared with DL Lite, OWL-R works better when you have already > massaged your data into RDF and are working with it as RDF." > Did you mean to say that OWL-R works well in the sense that one uses RDF + OWL-R and can use SPARQL to query the result, whereas this is not really the case for DL Lite? As the statement is true for OWL-R, if this is not the case for SPARQL (ie, query rewriting cannot be done for SPARQL queries easily) than you are right. This is a differentiating feature... Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 16:30:20 UTC