On 11/13/2015 01:21 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote: > On 12.11.2015 22:09, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> On 11/12/2015 09:10 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote: >> [...] >>> On the other hand, it is entirely possible to implement correct OWL QL >>> (note: >>> *QL* not *RL*) reasoning in SPARQL without even using "rules" that need any >>> recursive evaluation [3]. This covers all of RDFS, and indeed some of the >>> patterns in these queries are quite well-known to Wikidata users too (e.g., >>> using "subclassOf*" in a query). Depending on how much of OWL QL you want to >>> support, the SPARQL queries you get in this case are more or less simple. >>> This >>> work also gives arguments as to why this style of SPARQL-based >>> implementation >>> does (most likely) not exist for OWL RL [3]. >> >> Does OWL QL cover *all* of RDFS, even things like subproperties of >> rdfs:subclassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf? > > No, surely not. What I meant is the RDFS-fragment of OWL DL here (which is > probably what RDFS processors are most likely to implement, too). > > I think I recall you showing P-hardness of RDFS proper a while ago, which > would obviously preclude translation into single SPARQL 1.1 queries (unless > NL=P).
Yes indeed, and hence my query. > > Markus > > peter _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
