Wow. I am very impressed about the support here.
The false statement that SPARQL cannot be used with OWL semantics is
being repeated again and again, and is often stated to defend the need
for SWRL
That is what I've found exactly in the Protege Mailing List. I think you
are right.
When you look at the actual layer cake of the semantic web, there is no
swrl at all. [1]
I am curious if we will see SPIN one day around there.
The second argument of M. Connor was, that SPARQL has no sound semantics
[2].
"What's worse, SPARQL does not even have formally sound semantics
in terms of RDF. [..] there
are no guarantees about the soundness of results returned by a SPARQL
query even on an RDF ontology."
I there a de facto standard for the SPARQL semantics, used by each
reasoners?
Or do you just trust in the reasoners you choosed?
Thanks again. You really help me! :)
Rita
[1]http://www.w3c.it/talks/2009/athena/images/layerCake.png
[2]https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2007-April/001776.html
Am 02.06.2010 23:01, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 2:21 AM, Rita Marnau wrote:
Hi everyone,
for my thesis I compare different technologies to realize constraint
checking for ontologies.
I am currently interested between the difference between SPARQL and
SWRL/SQWRL.
In the FAQ (http://spinrdf.org/faq.html) it is said that " SPIN is
more expressive than SWRL, because SPARQL has various features such
as UNIONs and FILTER expressions"
In the Protege Mailinglist, the opposite is affirmed.
(https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2009-September/012148.html)
"SPARQL can be used to query OWL ontologies if they are serialized
as RDF triples but has no understanding of the semantics
associated/ /with those triples/."
/Martin O'Connor gives an example that can be expressed in SQWRL but
not in SPARQL.
Hi Rita,
in addition to the details provided by Irene and Scott, you may want
to ask the Protege people again, pointing to our responses if needed.
The false statement that SPARQL cannot be used with OWL semantics is
being repeated again and again, and is often stated to defend the
need for SWRL. SWRL is really unnecessary nowadays, and will
hopefully disappear over time. SPARQL is a W3C standard syntax that
is more expressive and better supported by native RDF stores.
Also note that SPARQL 1.1 will contain property path expressions such
as rdfs:subClassOf* that will allow you to directly simulate many
aspects of OWL reasoning, even without stacking SPARQL on top of an
OWL inference engine.
Finally, a huge advantage of SPIN is that it supports user-defined
SPARQL functions and magic properties, that greatly extend the
expressivity of SPIN over normal SPARQL, including recursive rules.
Regards,
Holger
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid
Composer,
TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer,
TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
