RE: SPARQL and the owl web language

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Hans Teijgeler <>
> Date: 18 March 2006 17:24
> 
> Elias,
> 
> Will it be relatively easy to exclude the inferenced graphs?
> 
> Regards,
> Hans

Hans,

One way is to have different graphs for the base graph and the graph-with-inference.  Then the application can choose whether it sees the inference or not.  This is the way we do it in Jena - you set up a graph with choice of inference or custom rules.

In SPARQL, the application can direct different part of the query to different graphs so a single query can access both inferred and ground data (although it isn't necessarily the most convenient way of doing it).

	Andy

> 
> -----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; ClŠudio Fernandes; public-sparql-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SPARQL and the owl web language
> 
> 
> ClŠudio,
> 
> 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
> 
> > 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
> 
> 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] - 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
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 17-Mar-06

Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 09:29:47 UTC