- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:13:42 -0500
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 11/30/2010 10:00 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > > On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:51, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > >> On 11/30/2010 9:49 AM, Enrico Franconi wrote: >>> I repeat myself: *any* OWL-QL or OWL-EL implementation by design incorporates BGPs with OWL Direct Semantics in the manner I'm proposing. Not having BGPs in the manner I'm proposing would force them not to adopt SPARQL for their systems. >> >> Thanks, Enrico. >> >> Birte and Bijan -- if all current SPARQL implementations that incorporate OWL QL or OWL EL semantics behave in this way, wouldn't we be facing a significant implementation cost to keep the spec "as is"? i.e. wouldn't we be asking all current SPARQL-OWL implementations to change their behavior? > > My answer to this question is: YES. If they want to be compliant, they would have to change their behaviour (to deal with bnodes in the data, to returns bnodes, and to rewrite all their optimisation strategies and heuristics). > --e. Since we're hearing a pretty strong mixed opinion from the OWL implementers on this list, are there other implementers that we can talk to to ask which of these two approaches they'd prefer? thanks, Lee
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:14:19 UTC