W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Vocabulary for result sets

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:45:05 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F0586D23D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@NineByNine.org] 
> Sent: 23 January 2003 21:12
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: 'public-esw@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Vocabulary for result sets
> 

...

> 
> Hmmm... I wonder of there should be links to, or identifiers of, the 
> knowledge-base and query used, so that valid results from 
> different queries 
> can be differentiated.  In practice, I think this kind of 
> testing is a 
> relatively closed-world activity, so maybe it doesn't matter.
> 

Graham,

Good point.  A number of properties to annotate the result set would be
good.  Of course, nothing stops any properties being added ... but putting
them in the vocabulary encourages their use. 

Are there any suitable properties from other vocabularies to reuse?

Also - this could be the result from a query, not just recording information
for a testcase.  In this case, we still have a query->single graph approach
but the presentation of the results isn't a subgraph of the original KB, but
an encoding of the variable bindings.  Each solution can be substituted into
the pattern for the query to generate a sequence of subgraphs, each of which
satisfy the query but the result set graph does not feel like knowledege
extraction anymore.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 09:45:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:12 GMT