Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Birte Glimm
<birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> In any case, how does the group feel about adding a section about
> alternative syntaxes to the entailment regimes document?

+1 from C&P on this.

We definitely heard clear feedback at OWLED from users that they would
like to see this kind of sensitivity to OWL in the ongoing SPARQL
revision. I was surprised at this, since I was trying to suggest that
the entailment regimes stuff was enough, but people were very clear
that they don't want to have to express OWL constructs in terms of RDF
triple BGPs only since that can be, as everyone agrees, very awkward.

Pellet already goes a little way towards this with predicate
extensions (see, Lee, I didn't use the word "magic"!); but we'd like
to go much further and have that bit SPARQL compliant. We will
implement something like Birte's suggestion in a future release.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark

Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 20:51:33 UTC