- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 01:27:12 +0100
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Here is what I know regarding this: KAON2 also has a SPARQL interface (only distingushed variables though) and Racer has its owl syntax that is similar to SPARQL and they might consider changing it if SPARQL/OWL becomes a standard. For HermiT SPARQL support would be mainly my job I guess. At the moment implementing all OWL 2 features and passing all OWL 2 conformance tests has priority. Birte 2009/7/8 Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>: > I'll send some text along to Kjetil. > > Cheers, > Kendall > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Lee Feigenbaum<lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: >> Kendall Clark wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it would be useful information, particularly since time >>> permitting is the limit, to include in F&R information about existing >>> implementations of OWL entailment in SPARQL. >>> >>> Pellet is one such (with the SPARQL-DL that's been mentioned here) and >>> there may be others; but this seems relevant information and I can't >>> think of any good reasons why it shouldn't be included; if for no >>> other reason, it makes the "time permitting" and the "we must do >>> these" features more parallel and consistent. >> >> I agree. >> >> I think the intention was (and should be) to make all of the sections of the >> doc (both required & time-permitting) complete before we are finished >> publishing F&R. >> >> I'm sure the editors will appreciate any text & suggestions for the time >> permitted features (including existing implementations, examples, etc.) - >> the only stuff that's there right now are the brief descriptions that I >> wrote up so that they would be covered in FPWD. >> >> Lee >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Kendall > > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 00:27:53 UTC