- From: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:19:31 +0100
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Maurizio Lenzerini <lenzerini@dis.uniroma1.it>
- Message-id: <5964D429-2ED5-4EE5-A53D-426F9B06197E@isti.cnr.it>
On Dec 22, 2010, at 21:25 , Birte Glimm wrote: >>> 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. > > Birte > Dear Birte, working towards conjunctive query entailment regime for OWL QL ontologies is specific and may rise a question about what happens for other OWL profiles. Now, wouldn't it not be just easier and reasonable to have 1. an OWL 2 "LITE" Direct semantics regime, which is the one in the draft so far (if you like so, you may omit the word "LITE") 2. an OWL 2 "FULL" Direct semantics regime, which is the one we would like to have and compliant with what is called (full) "Conjunctive Queries" ? -Umberto Straccia --------------------------------------------------- | Umberto Straccia, PhD | | ISTI | | Italian National Research Council | | Via G. Moruzzi,1 | | I-56124 Pisa (PI), ITALY | | ------------------------------------------------ | | WWW : http://www.straccia.info | | E-mail: Umberto.Straccia@isti.cnr.it | / ) Phone : +39.050.315 2894 (\ / ) Fax : +39.050.315 3464 ( \ _ ( (|___ ___________________________________________ ) )_ (((\ \) / ) / ) / /))) (\\\\ \_/ / \ \_/ ////) \ / \ / \ _/ \_ / -----/ /---------------------------------------------\ \-------- / / \ \
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 09:21:08 UTC