- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:45:24 +0200
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 17 Jul 2006, at 22:41, Enrico Franconi wrote: >> I'm really surprised this is not how people currently handle OWL >> semantics. bNodes are perfect for this. > > Why does OWL-DL (and the whole literature and practice of > databases) consider bnodes (aka existential variables) in the > answer set? I meant: Why does *NOT* OWL-DL (and the whole literature and practice of databases) consider bnodes (aka existential variables) in the answer set? > Because answers would not be unique anymore (there would be > infinitely many different answers to a query to a dataset), and > most horribly, some of them may be infinitely long. > >> If anyone wrote a backward-chaining OWL engine, it seems they'd >> have to do this. > > I hope I convinced you. Backward chaining is irrelevant here, we > are talking about sound and complete reasoners wrt OWL-DL semantics. > > cheers > --e. >
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 20:45:37 UTC