- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:43:06 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 20 Jan 2006, at 07:17, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> What I am also saying that you have to transport the syntactic >> constraints that OWL-DL expressions have, to similar syntactic >> constraints to SPARQL queries when using OWL-DL entailment. >> Namely, in queries bnodes and variables are not in property >> position of any triple, nor in object position of rdf:type >> triples, and there is no rdf, rdfs, owl vocabulary symbol in the >> query with the exception of rdf:type in property position. > [snip] > > For the record, I always presumed that for OWL DL Entailment, > you'd work with the abstract syntax, as that's how entailment is > defined: > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.4 > > So, if I were going to write the spec for SPARQL parameterized > with OWL DL entailment, I would first define the abstract syntax of > the basic query in terms of the abstract syntax (which would only > allow query variables in certain places), then a transformation to > triples of that abstract syntax. > > So I don't think it's that big of a stretch, actually. You *could* > define a query syntax with variables in funky places, but it's not > immediate. And it's not immediate from the SPARQL (it's not *far*, > cause you can sorta see where some variables "would go" if you > tried to apply the reverse transformation to triples to sparql GPs). Fair enough. --e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:43:19 UTC