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

RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:18:33 +0200
To: Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Kendall Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC99197EF.AE515EC1-ONC1256EAD.007D6785-C1256EAD.007FF140@agfa.com>

Rob, 

Having some given RDF graph either containing
the triple :a :b :c. or the triple :d :e :f.
and using for instance cwm or euler --filter f
where f is

{:a :b :c} => {:yes :for <>}.
{:d :e :f} => {:yes :for <>}.

can easily return either the empty answer

or the answer
    :yes     :for <testC.n3> .

(and I have been using 2 types of running code)

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




"Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Sent by: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
09/06/2004 00:39

 
        To:     "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Kendall Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
        cc:     "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" 
<public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information



> "The protocol should allow construction of notional RDF
> graphs inferred (e.g. using standardized semantics such
> as RDFS, OWL or emerging technologies such as SWRL or N3
> rules) so that queries may be posed against the inferred
> knowledge base."

I have a problem with that because it seems to imply that all knowlege
*about* an RDF graph can be encoded *within* an RDF graph, and that's
clearly not the case. (The charter similar slants things this way as
well, which I think is a mistake.) It's perfectly sensible to know, for
example, that an RDF graph must contain at least one of two possible
triples, but not which one. Are you allowed to use that information to
help answer queries about the graph? I think it would be a major mistake
to make the use of such information a violation of the spec.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 19:19:15 GMT

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