Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Two points:
1) The RDFS fragment is clearly underspecified since it doesn't say anything about BNodes and whether they
are interpreted nominally (as in SPARQL) or existentially. OWL DL allows for
certain (tree) patterns of BNodes
in the ABox...I believe OWL 1.1 intended all OWL DL ontologies to be OWL 1.1,
so this would carry over.
2) However, given the LogSpace datacomplexity, I presume that BNodes were neglected. But then the
complexity results seem new:
http://www.eswc2007.org/pdf/eswc07-munoz.pdf
So, there is clearly a bunch of work to be done on this fragment's description.
Original comment by bparsia
on 29 Jun 2007 at 10:11
Original comment by pfpschne...@gmail.com
on 24 Oct 2007 at 8:58
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
baget...@gmail.com
on 29 Jun 2007 at 9:55