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

Re: Drdfat details for SWADE Semantic Storage and Retrieval Workshop - Amsterdam, Nov 13/14

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:52:40 +0100
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-esw@w3.org
Message-Id: <20031001155240.76ed6db2.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:06:12 +0100
Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> Looks like it will be a good meeting and is shaping up well.
> Couple of comments:
> o The 45m session on day two, "advanced implementing", could be clarified.
> It doesn't sound like very long to cover the issues of OWL and inference. I 
> assume, given the length, that this slot is to discuss any such issues that 
> arise from the day1 discussions rather than opening up those topics from 
> scratch.

You assume right.

> ... Given the scale of the topic it might be worth narrowing it a little, 
> for example to datatypes and RDFS rather than attempt to squeeze useful OWL 
> discussions into the time - just a suggestion.

Yes, there could be something to prune out here, but I'm not sure which
ones. rdfs has been implemented the most, owl next and datatypes probably
the least so it is a question of whether to talk about what has been done or
what has not been done (yet).

> o How much are you looking to discuss retrieval issues (query, access APIs)?
> The title and reading list includes retrieval but the agenda doesn't have 
> anything specifically on that. Like OWL support, this is a big topic and it 
> might be worth keeping the meeting focused on the narrower storage aspects but 
> I'm happy either way.

Personally I'd support some on the API/interface side of things such as
query, WS, programmatic APIs.  When you store the stuff, how you get it
in/out is important.

It seems somewhat that removing or reducing the OWL mentions would make
it fit better into the time.  However it would be a shame to have
nothing about that since there are people working on it now/recently for
OWL's CR so getting them together would be useful.  I guess they
are all off to the ontology conference in Florida anyway so maybe
that's not so criticial for this event.

> [The issue for us, and perhaps for other groups, is who should attend. If the 
> people interested in database mapping, in OWL inference and in retrieval 
> languages are different then it helps us to decide who should go if the meeting 
> focus is clear.]


> o It won't be in the public page anyway but the Jena entry should be just "HP 
> Labs" since the people doing the database support in Jena2 are based in Palo 
> Alto rather than Bristol.


Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 10:55:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:37 UTC