- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:31:53 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 1 May 2009, at 09:10, Steve Harris wrote: > 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. [snip] So there are sort of two cases (off the top of my head): Bnodes being entailed and the infinite number of axiomatic triples. BNodes entailment is already worked out in SPARQL as it stands (a good chunk of the last working group went into that), and not returning all the axiomatic triples is also easy to spec. Furthermore, the Chileans have, per usual, done a brilliant job: http://www.springerlink.com/content/4501m2340532873k/ Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 08:28:11 UTC