- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:28:12 +0100
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B0BD15C.8060906@w3.org>
Hi Birte, I share your unhappiness:-)... and I am wondering. I am not sure we discussed how a user would choose among the various entailment regimes a system provides (maybe different URI-s correspond to different regimes?). Also, I am not sure about a conformance issue: would all SPARQL implementation have to implement simple entailment as a minimum? However... let us suppose that (a) each system has simple entailment as a possibility and (b) the user can choose which entailment is used for a specific query. Do we then really need this mixed semantics? What are the use cases? After all, the user can then choose to run simple entailment for queries on annotations... I presume you guys discussed that... A tiny editorial issue, too. You write: [[[ SPARQL is only defined for basic graph patterns that can be instantiated into RDF triples. For OWL 2 Direct Semantics, an extension to BGPs in functional style syntax (FSS) or other popular OWL syntaxes seems natural, but is not part of this specification. ]]] though I understand the intention, I am not sure this is editorially correct. Isn't it correct that anything that I write down in FSS can be expressed in RDF graphs (even if it is ugly:-)? If so, the issue is not with BGP-s or an extension thereof, but the triple-based syntax used in the BGP and a possibly alternative based on, say, FSS. Ie, something like [[[ SPARQL is only defined for basic graph patterns using a triple-based syntax. For OWL 2 Direct Semantics, an alternative syntax for BGPs based on functional style syntax (FSS) or other popular OWL syntaxes seems natural, but is not part of this specification. ]]] I may have got something wrong... Ivan Birte Glimm wrote: > Hi all, > I have added a section about OWL Direct Semantics: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml > > I am not really happy with the work-around for querying for > annotations, but it seems users really want to query for them and > Direct Semantics simply ignores annotations. I am happy about any > feedback/alternative suggestions for that and for any other parts of > the section. > > Birte > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 12:28:45 UTC