W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Potential text for time-permitting features in F&R

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:04:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4A451BB4.1000805@thefigtrees.net>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
CC: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> My comments for the F&R document are below (per my ACTION)
> 
> This is probably a nit pick, but section 2.3.2 Description probably could be
> re-written to give better context regarding checking for the absence of a
> binding in contrast to 'classical' (open-world) negation:
> 
> ..  can require the checking of whether certain triples (or terms) do or
> don't exist in the graph. Checking for the absence of triples is a form of
> negation called Negation by failure (or default negation).  Such an
> interpretation of negation is in contrast to one that is based on there
> being a logical derivation (the open-world assumption) and is the approach
> traditionally used by database systems.

I'm pretty indifferent on this - I'm guessing that it's not enough to 
hold up FPWD decision for anyone, so please let me know if I'm guessing 
wrong. :)

> 4 Update
> 
> The Working Group has resolved to specify a SPARQL/Update language, but may
> also pursue a HTTP based graph update via the protocol. This issue is
> orthogonal to the SPARQL/Update language. Whether or not there will be a
> concrete mapping between SPARQL/Update and HTTP based graph update is
> currently under discussion in the working group.
>  
> I'm not sure if this section in red is not subject to comment (because it
> came from a resolution for instance), but I suggest the following
> re-wording:
> 
> .. may also pursue a native HTTP protocol abstraction for updates to an RDF
> dataset. 

It doesn't come straight from the resolution. The two resolutions were 
(after some amount of careful word choice during the telecon):

* SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language
* SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores

It might be best to use the text from the resolutions verbatim.

Lee

> And in (4.2.3 Existing implementation)
> 
> The 4Suite content repository supports the use of HTTP PUT to either
> directly update a named graph or to update XML an document that is mirrored
> into RDF via a GRDDL-like mechanism.
> 
> -- Chimezie
> 
> 
> ===================================
> 
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> 
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).  
> Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 19:05:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT