- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:11:33 -0500
- To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
- CC: l14103@alunos.uevora.pt, 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>, 'Cláudio Fernandes' <cff@di.uevora.pt>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
-----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 19:11:44 UTC