On 12 May 2009, at 11:26, John Goodwin wrote: > >> If I could be sure that my SPARQL query environment would use >> OWL reasoning to fill in the gaps in its knowledge, then I'd >> be more inclined to publish OWL data. But right now there is >> a dearth of high-quality, widely-used OWL implementations. > > Well there are implementations of SPARQL-DL (e.g. Pellet) but most > SPARQL endpoints I know do tend to just do RDFS reasoning (if that). > Maybe demand will drive more implementations? > > I know there is a new SPARQL working group - is there much talk of OWL > inference + SPARQL going on there? Yes, there is. That doesn't directly address the problem of how you run a OWL-DL reasoner over even medium sized datasets (say, one gigatriple). As far as I know that is an unsolved problem, though I could well be out of date in that front. My understanding is that the issues around SPARQL/OWL are to do with how you get consistent results across OWL reasoners, and how you represent certain types of entailment in SPARQL results. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9ADReceived on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 10:41:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC