- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:53:55 +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 07:20, Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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?) I guess that at the end of current "2.5 Basic Graph Patterns" is best. --e.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 06:54:08 UTC