- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:30:34 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 12, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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? You can use SPARQL for DL Lite easily. What I really meant is that DL Lite already has work done for integrating with relational tables. > 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... SPARQL works equally well with any of the profiles. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 10:31:04 UTC