- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:23:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: adrianw@snet.net
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
I very much agree that there should be less variability in the SPARQL specification. peter From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net> Subject: Formal Semantics of OWL + RDF + SPARQL + SWRL Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:10:44 -0500 > Peter -- > > A thought about "those were not the results I expected" and SPARQL... > > One of the bad things about the various implementations of classical SQL is > that they have divergent semantics -- that is, they can produce different > results given the same query and data. > > For combined use of OWL + RDF + SPARQL + SWRL it seems even more important > that there should be a simple, accessible model theory (analogous to [1]) > that implementers of the combined languages can adhere to with a reasonable > amount of effort. (This is argued in more detail in [2]). > > Does such an animal exist, or is there perhaps work in that direction? > > Thanks in advance for pointers. -- Adrian > > > [1] Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is > Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete, A. Walker. > Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22. > > [2] Understandability and Semantic Interoperability of Diverse Rules Systems > www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 > > (With apologies if this note has some html in it. My email program is a > bit independent about outgoing format)
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2005 15:24:52 UTC