W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Outcome of Meeting with Jeremy Carroll, Stuart Williams and Dan Brickley

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:47:43 +0000
Message-ID: <4782499F.5000401@icra.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

Just a quick follow up on this thread ahead of the WG telecon in half an 
hour's time or so - I've been playing with the POWDER Lite example in 
[1] and have made a few corrections, generated a graph etc. - something 
I always find makes the RDF easier to understand.

Phil.

[1] http://www.fosi.org/projects/powder/bristol.html

Phil Archer wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> (SWCG as input to telecon on Friday).
> 
> As previously discussed, JJC, Dan Bri and Stuart W kindly gave up 
> practically their whole day to look at the POWDER issues yesterday (and 
> Jeremy's been posting a lot of stuff to www-archive recently too [1]).
> 
> First of all I would like to record my thanks to them and to HP for 
> their hospitality.
> 
> I've tried to capture the output of that meeting as best I can in a 
> document that sets out the problem (as I understand them) and the 
> solution that is now being proposed. It would be wrong to post that doc 
> on the group's web space (I've been in trouble for doing something 
> similar before :-) ) so I've posted it at [2] and included some 
> disclaimers. Any and all errors are mine.
> 
> In brief - we do without reification and named graphs, we avoid non-SW 
> specialists having to handle complex OWL constructs and we use GRDDL to 
> anchor simplified RDF/XML documents that have a limited semantics in 
> something that is consistent with formal logic. (Note to self: take 
> carrot when next visiting Bristol to feed the rabbits that can sometimes 
> appear from underneath Jeremy's hat).
> 
> We noted some action items which I'd like to record here (and they'll 
> make sense in the context of [2]):
> 
> Action: Dan to write warning paragraph concerning risks of creating 
> blank nodes with properties.
> 
> Action: JJC to write output, i.e. verbose RDF/OWL doc that says the same 
> as the example.
> 
> WG: Include notes on the declarative semantics of pre and post transform 
> in the documents. 'Operational semantics' applies to pre-transform (what 
> in [2] I call POWDER Lite), 'formal semantics' apply only to 
> post-transform (POWDER Full).
> 
> POWDER Full allows more sophisticated reasoning, profile matching. 
> Importantly, it also provides the academic rigour for the pre-transform 
> version (POWDER Lite).
> 
> Action: JJC to write to POWDER group to explain the problem of dealing 
> with sets of resources cf. sets of URIs. (end result is likely to be 
> POWDER only applies to sets of URIs).
> 
> Action: JJC to re-draft formal semantics [3] to match URI-based approach.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/
> [2] http://www.fosi.org/projects/powder/bristol.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0042.html
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 15:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT