RE: Lee's feature proposal



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Harris
> Sent: 1 May 2009 09:17
> To: Bijan Parsia
> Cc: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Lee's feature proposal
> 
> 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.

The ability to query the same data with and without inference in the same query is very useful.

 Andy

> 
> - 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 12:58:34 UTC