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

Re: New use case - RDFS/OWL related

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:34:41 -0400
Message-Id: <p0611041abcf2cc9b069f@[10.0.0.11]>
To: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

At 21:44 +0200 6/13/04, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>On Jun 8, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>>   I think you missed the intent of my message - I tried to be 
>>clear that I was NOT talking about an open ended query -- I would 
>>not be going to CYC and saying tell me what you know about cats, I 
>>would be going to a graph and querying forthe bindings for a query 
>>something like this
>..snup..
>>     Query the CYC graph for the pattern in which cat has a 
>>CLASSTYPE (subclassof or equivalentClass)
>>  of a restriction class and return to me the names of what 
>>PROPerties the restriction is on, what OWLterm the restriction uses 
>>(AllValues, SomeValues, etc.) and what the RESTriction is.
>..snup..
>>    In practice I might do something different than this (perhaps 
>>multiple queries for specific combinations as I needed them), but 
>>in every case I am asking for specific properties of specific 
>>entities from an RDF graph - in my opinion, this capability is why 
>>I devoted so much of my past few years to making OWL an RDF 
>>language -- if I just wanted to query documents, I would have 
>>agreed that an XML syntax was sufficient -- but for linking and 
>>processing OWL, I want to use the URIs and the graph
>...
>>   As far as 3.6 goes, I guess I could use optional features in the 
>>above, I was thinking of multiple queries myself, but could go 
>>either way ...
>
>Query, and returning a (partial) tree from a certain point on is one 
>thing - Querying multiple times as in "over -time-" and/or as the 
>result of a previous query and looking at the aggregate result set 
>is quite another - as you then suddenly are into transactions, 
>locking and consistancy issues if the database is live; i.e. changes 
>under your feet.
>
>Sofar the emphasis on a 'one query' one answer has very much 
>reasures me - and stayed well away of the usual rat holes.
>
>Dw

I wasn't talking about multiple queries over time - although these 
are slow changing documents in the main so it woudln't worry me - I 
meant submitting multiple query patterns for each of the things I 
wish to check for -- thus, if a new foaf implementation wants to know 
if, for example, DNA-Checksum is owl:inverseFunctional or not, that's 
just a single query for a single result -- which is why this use case 
is important, it reminds people that dereferencing RDFS (and OWL) 
relations is basically just an RDF query - which is a major benefit 
of RDFS
-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 23:35:02 GMT

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