- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:10:42 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 1 May 2009, at 08:59, Ivan Herman wrote: > It is not clear to me (lack of my technical knowledge!) whether > Bijan's > SPARQL/OWL proposal covers both semantics of OWL or not. OWL DL is, in > many respect, a loose sub thing to OWL Full, so it might, but we > have to > be very explicit (at charter time, too!). So it would be good to put > my > mind at ease:-) How would we handle the others like RDFS? I'm not really hot on the logical underpinnings, but I don't remember running into any substantial problems when applying SPARQL over RDFS. There are some questions around how you handle certain queries that theoretically have infinite solutions, but there are pragmatic workarounds for those. I'm confident that whatever solution SPARQL/OWL proposes here will be applicable to SPARQL/RDFS. > I presume service descriptions play an important role here. I would imagine so. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:11:17 UTC