SPARQL and SPARUL versus OWLlink Protocol

Regarding the recent W3C member submission
the mechanisms described -- for adding assertions, deleting assertions,
making queries, specifying which entailments or entailment regimes
should be used, etc. -- seem very much like mechanisms that are needed
in general in the RDF world.  Unfortunately, the submission makes it
sound like these features would only be available to OWL, and that would
be a shame.

I hope that this work will be folded into requirements for current or
future SPARLQ and SPARUL-related work that would enable such mechanisms
to be used by *all* semantic extensions[1] of RDF, rather than being
relegated (or limited) to OWL.  Any OWL-specific needs could then be
layered on *top* of the general RDF mechanisms, rather than having a
second set of mechanisms.


David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 01:38:23 UTC