- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:02:44 -0500
- To: l14103@alunos.uevora.pt
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Cláudio Fernandes <cff@di.uevora.pt>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
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/ >
Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 17:02:50 UTC