- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:27:03 -0500
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 21, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > 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. I'm groovin' to that oldie alright. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 14:27:07 UTC