- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:41:21 +0100
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, greg@evilfunhouse.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 12:41:51 UTC
Birte, (I cc Greg explicitly, because that is directly relevant to the service description part which is his baby...:-) another issue that, at some point, we will have to address... though this is probably not part of the entailment document per se... The issue is how a system broadcasts to the world that it can or cannot handle certain profiles. From your document's point of view it is of course correct to say that EL, QL and RL profiles are automatically handled by referring to the Direct and RDF-compatible semantics. But somehow, somewhere, I as a user would like to know whether a specific endpoint can handle, say, EL only and not the full Direct Semantics (ie, the DL profile, so to say). My gut feeling is that we may have to have some extra vocabulary in the service description part... 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 12:41:51 UTC