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

Re: CBD - Concise Bounded Description - Member Submission from Nokia

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:07:10 +0200
Message-Id: <8C43F26E-130B-11D9-BEB1-0003939CA324@asemantics.com>
Cc: "DAWG public list" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On Sep 30, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Member submission from Nokia (Patrick Stickler) that is relevant to
> discussions about DESCRIBE, bNodes in CONSTRUCT and possibly to 
> handling
> containers and collections.
>     http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/

yes nice Patrick put his CBD work available as W3C Note

> Notes:
>  * requires IFP processing in the server

even though IFBD could be harder than simple bNodes-closure, due it 
requires RDF-Schema / OWL information handy (i.e. 
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty definitions) when carrying out the CBD of 
a resource - a bit of a requirement, due that most RDF data and schema 
(their definitions) still live separately. Unless of course a service, 
software, decides to hardcode some well know IFPs like foaf:mbox, 
foaf:homepage and so on.

Anyway, such issues should not affect DAWG definition of  DESCRIBE, if 
we pretend it to return an implementation (protocol?) specific 
sub-graph containing information about the resource being described 
I.e. the same DESCRIBE request might return different results from 
different services.

>  * includes the reification of any included statements

return all statement reifications might also be painful...perhaps 
should that be optional or negotiable?

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 18:07:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC