W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Lee's feature proposal

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:17:02 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <40C457A5-C2FF-4E34-AC91-8F2E335D5E6D@garlik.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
On 1 May 2009, at 09:14, Bijan Parsia 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?
> RDFS style semantics is somewhat easier to specify since all  
> syntactic categories are reflected as individuals. Thus, "normal"  
> binding works without difficulty. For the DL fragment, the key issue  
> was how to handle nominally higher order variables (e.g., variables  
> that range over classes). This is what SPARQL-DL solved.

That's reassuring, and matches my experiences.

> I'm happy to do the whole stack. The work Jos (among others) has  
> done in RIF points the way pretty clearly there.
>> I presume service descriptions play an important role here.
> I don't see why.

Not speaking for Ivan, but in my opinion they are important so a  
client can know what entailment regime the endpoint it is querying is  
operating under. Further it may be possible to have two endpoints that  
reflect one store, both with and without inference (for example). The  
service description could relate these two endpoints with some  
appropriate statements.

- 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  
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:17:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:54 UTC