- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:59:42 -0600
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> >It is also true that the current state of the deployed art, suitable >for standardization, is conjunctive abox query alone. There there is >a wealth of theory (see ian's and sergio's and enrico's (and >others') papers), several reasonably optimized implementations >(Racer, Pellet, KAON2, with Racer and KAON2 being commercial...I >guess Cerebra also does conjunctive abox query, and it is, of >course, commercial, but I'm not very familiar for it). Oh, various >subsets of OWL DL (e.g., DL Lite) also fit this model. It would be >nice to standards this level so that we can get interoperability >between the 4 query implementation. (I imagine FaCT++ will have >something soon). I'm happy with that as sufficient justification for focussing on this case, but lets not call it 'OWL-DL', but something like OWL-Abox. Clearly, this case is not obtained just by doing "simple"//"OWL-DL" in the SPARQL definitions, with any wording of those definitions, so there is still some work to do or at least to check. I don't trust myself to be the judge for exactly how to couch the definitions to describe this case accurately. Can you do that? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:59:56 UTC