Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

On 11/30/2010 9:37 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
> Any OWL-QL or OWL-EL implementation by design incorporates OWL Direct Semantics in the manner I'm proposing.
> I'm too lazy to list them all.
> Many of them are used in real world applications such as banking, database integration, medical applications, etc.
> cheers
> --e.

Hi Enrico,

Thanks. I'm specifically interested in anyone doing SPARQL in the 
context of OWL direct semantics. Are you aware of any implementations 
doing this?

thanks,
Lee

>
> On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:29, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2010 9:20 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>>>
>>> Be surprised: the academic, industry, and system people working on OWL-QL-based systems are already very upset by the limitation of the current version of the standard, and asked me to discuss the matter with the group.
>>>
>>>> Finally, since it's so well defined and understood its not like if it becomes suddenly known useful that there'd be any barrier to implementations picking it up.
>>>
>>> I fail to understand this argument. Why are we standardising something, if it is already well known? Maybe to facilitate interoperability of acknowledged technologies? :-)
>>
>> Hi Enrico,
>>
>> Are there existing implementations of SPARQL that incorporate OWL Direct Semantics in the manner you're proposing?
>>
>> Bijan, Birte -- do the systems that you're familiar with currently implement SPARQL with OWL Direct Semantics in the manner that's in the current entailment document, or is it not yet implemented at all?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Lee
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:44:45 UTC