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: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:59:26 -0500
Message-ID: <20040507125926.B31246@monkeyfist.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:48:41PM -0500, Pat Hayes muttered something about:

> Yes, but lets keep things in perspective. How about only considering 
> valid derivations from the basic graph, and maybe even requiring a 
> closure relative to some subset of the complete set of rdfs rules: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFSRules

I've been trying -- partly to be responsive to one of Rob's repeated points
-- to talk about a *requirement* rather than a solution. I'm happy for
others to backfill it with concrete possible solutions.

I'm less happy -- though this isn't directed at you, Pat -- for people to
reject the requirement because one possible design decision responding to it
seems like "too much work", especially where there are modest decisions that
might not be.

Just my two,  meta-process cents.

> Well, up to RDFS at least there is a complete set of rules which are 
> pretty transparently related to the formal semantics, if we want to 
> use them.

Yes, which is one reason why I worded my requirement specifically as RDFS
query, in conjunction with the reasoning experts in our lab. :>

> >Let's leave derived graphs and inferencing to working groups that know
> >how to address them and confine ourselves to representing queries
> >against the data model which underlies it all.
> 
> Im sympathetic to this pov, however.

As am I, absent obligations to represent what users are asking for. (They
seem to not care at all, as I said in an earlier message, about this
distinction.)

Best,
Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 13:59:38 GMT

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