Re: SPARQL and the owl web language

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Hans Teijgeler wrote:
> Elias,
> 
> Will it be relatively easy to exclude the inferenced graphs?
> 
> Regards,
> Hans 

I believe this is completely up to the service implementing the SPARQL
protocol. As Matt Williams put it, if the service runs a reasoner over
the rdf graph, then you'll include the inferred statements and the
contrary as well. Basically, it's up to the store providing the
datasources for the query.

- -Elias

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Elias Torres
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 13:03
> To: l14103@alunos.uevora.pt
> Cc: Semantic Web; Cláudio Fernandes; public-sparql-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SPARQL and the owl web language
> 
> 
> Cláudio,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Elias Torres
> 
> PS> I've copied the public-sparql-dev@w3.org mailing list to increase
> the awareness of the list for SPARQL related questions.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#rdfs-owl-queries
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#owlDisjunction
> 
> Cláudio 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] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20060220/
>>[2] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
>>
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17-Mar-06
>  
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEHBUVtsNTCOFcV0oRAgIZAJ9hMIUm2wE7FurVq1pRvXI9ljQgUwCfdShc
lWI0j7Y6WltBTRpOzc4imr0=
=iw+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 19:11:38 UTC