- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:16:37 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 20 Jan 2006, at 19:54, Pat Hayes 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"? > > I like them best in reverse order. "A-box" seems jargony and > "instance" is more precise than "factual". How about "OWL DL data > query"? Or is that getting a little too down-to-earth? fine for me. --e.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 14:16:53 UTC