- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:23:06 +0000
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 21 Dec 2010, at 08:23, Enrico Franconi wrote: > On 21 Dec 2010, at 01:18, Axel Polleres wrote: > >> 1) This is about whether bnodes in the data should be visible in answers. [snip] >> If this observation is right, I don't fully understand this last one: "I would be surprised that anybody would want to hack their systems to actually return bnodes." since it seems no particular "hack" is necessary... i.e. if you want to deal with RDF data, just treat bnodes from that data as special constants when you load them into your DL reasoner, and - so it seems - you're done. > > This is simply not correct in the case of systems employing UNA, like 100% of OWL-QL based systems. Not 100%, IIRC. OWLGres does not. Also, they are all non-conforming :) > Note that the fact that OWL2 currently does not have UNA is not an argument, IMHO. It was only an argument against your general argument that fidelity to the RDF Semantics document was an overriding consideration. Clearly, your happy to deviate from the standards when you think it's necessary. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:24:09 UTC