Re: "OWL" Entailment

On 7 May 2009, at 10:39, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> So, two other things.
> One, I keep including "simple entailment" in my list of possibles,  
> but that's already what we have (with conditions to ensure no extra  
> entailment driven bnodey answers).
> Two, it would be helpful to have a way to indicate whether the  
> answers are complete wrt to the query and the kb under the requested  
> semantics. An attribute in the result set would do the job.
> More sophisticatedly, a way to indicate timeouts that would be  
> helpful.

Agreed, that's something we do with longrunning or resource intensive  
SPARQL queries too. The way we indicate it requires something like 

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 10:02:58 UTC