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

RE: Vocabulary for result sets

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:05:27 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301241504510.5743-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


you might also get multiple valid resultsets per query, depending on the
power of the KB.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>
> > -----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 10:06:46 GMT

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