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

Re: FW: URI string substructure queries - labelling/filtering use case

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:16:15 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041001181615.GB582@monkeyfist.com>

> Possible use case story: 
> [[
...
> XYZ is attending an evening class on Description Logic and hopes to
> eventually make use of the generalised description facilities in W3C's
> OWL standard. In the meantime, millions of RDF triples have to be stored
> and retrieved in an efficient manner, so XYZ looks to DAWG-compatible
> RDF data storage systems. XYZ would be delighted to be able to have a
> product-neutral, standard way of asking such a database questions like
> "what documents have URIs that begin http://example.com/pics/adult/ ?",
> "what documents have URIs that end ".png"?, "what documents have URIs
> that contain the string "/adult/"?, so that such matching could be done
> within the database rather than in application code.
> ]]

Anyone care enough about this use case to see it included? I thought I
did, but upon rereading it carefully, I'm not sure I like it at
all. It breaks the webarch bit about URI opacity (well, I think, I'm
never really sure what that *really* means...)

At any rate, were this my app, I'd probably store URIs as strings, in
addition to storing them as URIs, in which case you could use DAWG's
string handling bits to do what danbri's asking for. But danbri is
bright and has surely thought about that?

Anyway, I owe the WG a draft v. soon now (like, in the next 2 hours or
so), and I'm unsure what to do about this UC. If anyone has a thought,
I'd like to hear it. :>

Thanks,
Kendall
Received on Friday, 1 October 2004 18:18:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT