ISSUE-80

DL-Lite

ACCEPTED: DL-Lite

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Bijan Parsia

Opened on:

2007-11-28

Description:

(On behalf of Carsten Lutz.)

There are many versions of DL-Lite around, all of them tractable,
and many (but not all) of them reducible to query answering in
RDBMS. I wonder how the fragment of DL-Lite was selected that is
currently in the document and what are the alternatives? Maybe
Bernardo can comment on this.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Proposed: Close ISSUE-76, ISSUE-77, and ISSUE-80 (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-04-12)
2. I've just added a note for DL-lite, as requested by my ACTION-116 (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-03-28)
3. Review of Fragments Doc for ACTION-110 (from msmith@clarkparsia.com on 2008-03-17)
4. RE: comment on the fragment document: (inverse) functional and DL-Lite (from msmith@clarkparsia.com on 2008-03-07)
5. Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80) (from alan.wu@oracle.com on 2007-11-29)
6. Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80) (from bcg@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-29)
7. Re: ISSUE-80 (DL-Lite): REPORTED: DL-Lite (from bcg@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-29)
8. Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2007-11-28)
9. proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80) (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2007-11-28)
10. Re: ISSUE-80 (DL-Lite): REPORTED: DL-Lite (from clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de on 2007-11-28)
11. RE: ISSUE-80 (DL-Lite): REPORTED: DL-Lite (from gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr on 2007-11-28)
12. Re: ISSUE-80 (DL-Lite): REPORTED: DL-Lite (from bcg@cs.man.ac.uk on 2007-11-28)
13. ISSUE-80 (DL-Lite): REPORTED: DL-Lite (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-28)

Related notes:

Changelog: