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 15:42:05 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: "'Libby Miller'" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301241538380.5743-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


I guess I mean that if you were associating a resultset with a query,
there might be several different resultsets that would be ok. by this I
mean several tables which are valid depending on whether the KB does
transitive closure on classes or not etc. Maybe it does this: I find it
difficult to read N3, and RDF schemas in general. Examples are the thing
for me, so I guess I should get on and try and add to yours from the
data we have.

Many thanks for doing this Andy :)

Libby

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

> Libby,
>
> > you might also get multiple valid resultsets per query,
> > depending on the
> > power of the KB.
>
> I'm not sure which way round you mean "multiple valid resultsets per query":
> the vocabulary allows multiple solutions per result table.  And also
> multiple result sets per result graph because it is rooted from a single
> node.  The example uses <> as that node but there is no reason it has to be
> that; you could have a bNode there, and have another starting bNode
> somewhere else.
>
> Could you give an example of when there would be multiple result sets?  I
> can image a "query request" to actually consist of a series of "queries" all
> of which should be executed.
>
> 	Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Libby Miller [mailto:Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 24 January 2003 15:05
> > To: Seaborne, Andy
> > Cc: 'Graham Klyne'; 'public-esw@w3.org'
> > Subject: RE: Vocabulary for result sets
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 10:43:07 GMT

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