- From: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:37:48 +0100
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, b.glimm@googlemail.com, Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>, Maurizio Lenzerini <lenzerini@dis.uniroma1.it>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFADAF1E5D.A22F0C6F-ONC1257801.0075632E-C1257801.0076D1D5@it.ibm.com>
> Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> > Sent by: b.glimm@googlemail.com > > 22/12/2010 21.25 > > To > > Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT > > cc > > Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Axel Polleres > <droxel@gmail.com>, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>, > Maurizio Lenzerini <lenzerini@dis.uniroma1.it>, SPARQL Working Group > <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> > > Subject > > Re: "Summary for informed outsiders" - Re: Proposed change to the > OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime > > >> What might be interesting to know for making an informed decision is > >> whether Guido and > >> Maurizio, for their practical applications, need non-tree-shaped nd- > >> variables for their queries? > > > > Assuming that I've got the point (sorry for not having much time to dedicate > > to this) I can tell you that we don't impose any limitation to the way > > existential variables could be used in conjunctive queries, so we could have > > something like: > > > > { x | bond(x), issued_by(x,y), head_by(y,z), owned_by(x,z), investigated(y) > > } > > It is not yet known whether such queries are decidable for OWL DL in > general. OWL DL forbids, therefore such cyclic patterns. I.e., > although query answering in defined in OWL's conformnce document, your > query is not in OWL DL and illegal for OWL's Direct Semantics. I don't > think that we can remove this restriction for SPARQL queries given the > unclear decidability, which was the motivation of putting it in place > for OWL. > > If you want to just treat y and z as projected out variables that's ok > of course. Otherwise, you might have to work towards a conjunctive > query entailment regime for OWL QL ontologies, where things are easier > and decidability is known. Maybe I forgot to mention that, in fact, we use OWL QL (+UNA). For this profile, it would be fine for us to have a regime that allows unrestricted SPARQL conjunctive queries. On the other hand, decidability apart, OWL DL does not seem to be a suitable language for data-oriented applications, therefore I understand that supporting CQ may be a nonsense in that case. Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards, Guido Vetere Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome ----------------------- IBM Italia S.p.A. via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome, Italy ----------------------- mail: gvetere@it.ibm.com phone: +39 06 59662137 mobile: +39 335 7454658 IBM Italia S.p.A. Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) Cap. Soc. euro 384.506.359,00 C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153 Societą soggetta all?attivitą di direzione e coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 21:38:27 UTC