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

Re: SOURCE test case sketches from users, please?

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:41:56 +0000
To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041222184156.GR8105@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 06:35:54PM +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>>heuristics based nataural language software, so hte query (in DAWG speak)
> >>>was:
> >>>
> >>>	SELECT ?id ?title
> >>>	WHERE SOURCE ?src (?id dc:title ?title)
> >>>			  (?src dc:creator ?creator)
> >>>	AND ?creator !~ /^Armadillo/
> >>>
> >>>assuming a direct relation between the SOURCE node and the document URI,
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>	SELECT ?id ?title
> >>>	WHERE SOURCE ?src (?id dc:title ?title)
> >>>		          (?src dawg:source ?doc)
> >>>		          (?doc dc:creator ?creator)
> >>>	AND ?creator !~ /^Armadillo/
> >>>
> >>>if not. s/dawg:source/dc:source/ if you prefer
> >>
> >>Both queries are legal.  Just depends what you decide to put in the 
> >>default KB.  You can model your provenance how you like.
> >>
> >>In either design, ?src is a URI (otherwise you can't put it in a graph) - 
> >>bNodes also work apart from GRAPH declarations (which 3Store wouldn't 
> >>use) but ?src as a graph does not.
> >>
> >>Collapsing dawg:source (i.e. design 1) is a matter of do you want to 
> >>record other information gainst ?doc that is not true of ?src.  As ever, 
> >>a more detailed modelling gets inconvenient in general use.  returning 
> >>?src (some pre-read-in-doc) URI is not going to be what apps usually 
> >>want.  Unless they are the data maintenance app, of course!
> >
> >
> >Yes, exactly. The problem with collapsing is that it rules out that class
> >of data-maintainance task. I agree its somewhat inconvient though, as the
> >2 queries show.
> >
> >In defense of the dawg:source style, systems that dont care about
> >historical provenance can just assert (<uri> dawg:source <uri>) and get on
> >with it.
> >
> >I could live with a collapsed form though,
> 
> You don't have to!  You-the-DB-designer can choose.  It isn't a WG 
> decision. That's what I meant by both are legal.

OK, well that will require some very carefully worded specs and testcases.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 18:42:00 GMT

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