- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:28:14 -0500
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 19, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > > On 19 Jan 2006, at 23:20, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> In my text, I am proposing to have an informative statement saying >>> that a safe way to have a working SPARQL with OWL-DL entailment is >>> to restrict the scoping set B to include only URIs, and to have the >>> above syntactic restrictions to the SPARQL BGPs. >> >> Good idea, provided only that we don't use the official label >> "OWL-DL" for this case which I think would be misleading. How about >> just calling it "simple OWL" or maybe "basic OWL" or some such >> qualification (?) > > Fair enough. Ooo, the naming wars :) How about "OWL DL ABox query", or "OWL DL factual query", or "OWL DL instance query"? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:28:18 UTC