W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Use Case: DC-01

From: Dirk Colaert <Dirk.Colaert@quadrat.be>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:21:46 +0200
Message-ID: <8C62F6881FC8D511BC52009027DC836E0200D7E7@SKYWALKER>
To: "'public-rdf-dawg@w3.org'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>This sounds like "best match", which would require some forumula
>for ranking alternative results, which may be alot of work.
>
>I personally like this use case, and think it definitely reflects
>real-world needs. I'm just wondering if it's (a) too big to take
>on and (b) something that needs more research/exploration before
>standardizing.

I certainly agree that solving the query is a difficult task. But I guess
this is outside the scope of the workgroup. The point is do we need a query
language capable of:
1- giving constraints (no doubt I guess)
2- imposing a sort order on some criteria
The difficulty is that that 'criteria' is not necessarily a data element in
the rdf document but implied in the rules within the document (as you said:
"best match").

The relevance of the Use Case is that it points clearly to that capability.
It is up to the WG to decide whether or not we want the QL to have that
functionality.

My point is: The problem is very common so, if we can't express this problem
with SQL, if we can't express the problem with xpath/opath (object oriented)
then we should do it with the query language were are designing now.
Otherwise we have to wait until yet another more high level language shows
up.

If we accept RDF as a means to store knowledge and meaning then an RDF query
language should be able to handle something like 'relevance' and 'best fit'

Right?

Dirk

___________________________________
Dr. Dirk Colaert MD
Production, Information Systems Architect
Agfa
HealthCare Informatics
call +32 3 444 84 08
fax  +32 3 444 84 01
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 07:15:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT