- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:37:38 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 20 Jan 2006, at 07:28, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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"? Basic OWL, or OWL factual query, or OWL instance query are all good for me. I don't like to introduce the ABox word here. --e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:37:51 UTC