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

Re: ACTION: discuss & promote union query (Was: ACTION: a replacement for 4.5 focussed on union query)

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:30:16 +0100
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040824173016.GN22252@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:17:40AM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> I don't buy that just retrieving source information with a special query
> language construct is good enough. I think people want to use it as
> predicates in queries, I think they want to process that information as
> true RDF, and I think that they want to use it in rules systems and
> reasoning systems and all the rest.
> 
> I don't buy that source information is the only metadata that people are
> going to want to attach to triples. In addition to knowing where
> something was said, people will want to know by whom, and when, and so
> on and so on.

Absolutly: (in quads, 1st member is SOURCE)

_:s  <ex:john>  <ex:givenName>      "John"
_:s  <ex:john>  <ex:familyName>     "Smith"
_:t  _:s        <store:cameFrom>    <http://example.com/aboutjohn.rdf>
_:t  _:s	<dc:creator>        <http://example.com/#fredBloggs>
_:t  _:s        <dc:date>           "2004-05-23"
_:t  _:s        <store:parseErrors> "0"
...

> I don't buy that people's main annotation of their RDF data should be
> managed through document management. I thought much of the point of RDF
> was that you could split your data into files in pretty much any way you
> want. The same fact could come from many different places and it would
> still all make sense.

I dont agree that much of the point of RDF was that you could split your
data anyway you wanted, but I dont see how any of that is contradicted.

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:30:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT