- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:20:41 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 19, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> 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? Sure. FUB can too :) What do we need for the current text? Or should we put this in an appendix (or a WG submission?) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:20:45 UTC