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

Re: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:39:39 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f2bbcc179d4ea8b@[10.0.100.76]>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 08:19:28PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>
>>  Kendall,
>>
>>  I don't see this as needing to go in the candidate requirements.  It doesn't
>>  seem to be a top level requirement to me.  Maybe I was just assuming it
>>  would happen.
>
>I don't care about it going into the list of reqs as an end in
>itself. I only care because that seems the only way to ensure that it
>*gets done*.
>
>Which is to say that I was not assuming it would happen otherwise.
>
>Plus, if I don't offer requirements, it seems I put myself, my
>institution,  and my AC in a worse position vis-a-vis formal
>objections than if I do.
>
>I'm finding that being editor *and* arguing for requirements is
>significantly burdensome. In fact, I was kinda hoping that since I
>help *everyone* polish their requirements, that I might get some
>reciprocation from other members of this WG. After all, I never
>consult my own position before helping people craft language, even for
>requirements I think mad. (But maybe this is editor special pleading
>and in bad taste, in which case: my apologies! :>)
>
>>  I see the requirements list as the the most important ones.  Was there a
>>  reason behind wanting it in the list that means it is significant enough?
>
>Well, I think it's important; I think, per Charter 1.8, that it's in
>scope, and I think that if it's not on the list explicitly, it may not
>get done.
>
>Not sure what else there is to say, other than that you hit spot on
>the use cases I had in mind in yr reply to Steve. (Our photo
>annotation tool would benefit greatly; it asks its server for
>instances of foaf:Person and instances of the subclasses of
>foaf:Person. Doing that in a clean, concise and standardized way is a
>big win, IMO.)

Well, that's easy: two queries:

??x rdf:type foaf:Person .
||
??x rdf:type ?y .
?y rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Person .

Or did you want subclass closure to be invoked automatically in the 
second case?

Pat

>
>Best,
>Kendall


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 13:39:41 GMT

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