- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:58:23 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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?) > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > After considering what material to put in rq23 and how to record the discussions and conclusions in all the email, I propose that the interested parties prepare a separate WG note (or, alternatively, a member submission). I will include some text that explains SPARQL at the level of simple entailment because the point of rq23 is to say what SPARQL/Q is, not what it might be. It is confusing to have all the possible options outline when they don't apply to this version of SPARQL. The only other thing I think we might consider is an appendix that expands on the definitions section but again I think it should stick to what this SPARQL is. There a lot to be said for a separate document in that it can evolve independently of rq23 (and the rec track process). Andy
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 11:58:41 UTC