Re: Re 2: [TF-ENT] OWL Direct Semantics added

Birte Glimm wrote:
> 
> Yes, that would definitely be nice, but I think on the entailment
> regimes telecon we agreed that an exact specification could also be
> left open for now. Systems can add something to their service
> descriptions indication what profile they support, but it is not
> necessarily standardised. Much in the same way as systems already
> support aggregates, but only now the most popular and established
> aggregaton functions are standardised. If Greg wants to add something
> in that direction, I am happy to work on that with him.
> Birte
>

O.k., let us see how this goes... Personally, I think that adding some
simple vocabulary would be good. Something like

sd:possibleEntailmentRegime <URI-FOR-Direct-Semantics>, <URI-FOR-SIMPLE>;
sd:possibleEntailmentProfile <URI-FOR-DL>, <URI-FOR-QL>.

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
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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