Re: SPARQL and the owl web language


I'm a member of the DAWG currently working on the SPARQL specification
and I just wanted to point you to a couple of our documents to help you
answer (or maybe not) your question:

>From our charter document [1]:

The protocol will allow access to a notional RDF graph. This may in
practice be the virtual graph which would follow from some form of
inference from a stored graph. This does not affect the data access
protocol, but may affect the description of the data access service. For
example, if OWL DL semantics are supported by a service, that may be
evident in the description of the service or the virtual graph which is
queried, but it will not affect the protocol designed under this charter.


Note that we did not engage in building a service description
specification, but nonetheless, it's no part of our spec.

There has been a LOT of discussion on the issue by the working group
members, organizations and individual parties. We've labeled the issue
owlDisjunction and as of 01/26/2006 we have decided [2] to postpone the
issue given an agreement on the current wording of the spec.


Elias Torres

PS> I've copied the mailing list to increase
the awareness of the list for SPARQL related questions.


ClŠudio Fernandes wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've recently bumped with some (naive?) questions about SPARQL and the
> OWL language:
> We know that SPARQL is a query language for RDF [1], and that the owl
> language [2] is a vocabulary extension of RDF. Put it that way, is
> SPARQL "big" enough to query correctly an ontology described by the owl
> language? If it isn't, what is the "main" query language to do that, if
> any exist? OWL-QL?    
> The bottom line is: if i want to build a semantic web agent, capable of
> querying an ontology, should i bet in rdf + SPARQL? or owl + ?? 
> Will i be betting in the wrong horse if i go through the owl language
> only and discard the potentialities of SPARQL? Or I'm i really confused
> and the truth is in rdf/owl + SPARQL? And which are my limits in this
> case?  
> thanks in advance for your time/thoughts, 
> [1] -
> [2] -

Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 17:03:05 UTC