W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: test cases for fromUnionQuery, please

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:50:32 -0400
To: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050601145032.GG21490@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote:

> Are you saying that your SPARQL service doesn't want to
> answer queries using other data set thatn those which belong to you (or you 
> trust)?

I'm saying that there are two broad kinds of use cases:

   1. those where the service provider is willing to allow the query
   requester to completely determine the RDF dataset

   2. those where the service provider isn't willing to allow the query
   requester to completely determine the RDF dataset

Or so it seems to me. And if I understand your proposal correctly, it does
not allow deployments of type (2), because it doesn't allow a service
provider to add triples to a background or default graph.

> Perhaps your SPARQL service can just reject queries that includes unwanted 
> FROM instructions.

Well, sure, of course  it can do that. But that's not the problem. I oppose
any design that does not allow a service provider to add triples to the
default (or "background") graph.

> It's a protocol issue. Say, for example, "Sorry, we don't have (or trust) 
> data you mentioned".

Well, there's no point deploying a service that has to refuse most queries,
instead of being able to answer them against the RDF dataset it prefers.

> What I want to achieve is "to preserve (for the query issuer) the way to
> exclude use of data unknown (or untrustworthy) to him/her", and it doesn't 
> mean
> the query issuer should always specify the set of the URIs of the concrete 
> data.

I think this is just an issue we haven't talked about a lot. I can see yr
point of view, but I think it's unneccessarily restrictive.

> Does this help my idea to get better understood?

Yes, I think I understand it better, but I don't think I'm closer to
supporting it. :>

But thanks for the clarifications.

Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 14:51:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT