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: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:28:25 +0000
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646E4459F8@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Chimezie Ogbuji
> Sent: 26 June 2009 19:03
> To: Kjetil Kjernsmo; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Potential text for time-permitting features in F&R
> 
> 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.

Sorry to nit pick the nit pick :-) but the "and is the approach traditionally used by database systems" does not read, to me, clearly as to which of negation by failure or logical negation, it is referring to.  Database negation (SQL EXISTS, SQL MINUS) is negation by failure; logic databases may have a logic-based negation.

	Andy

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 Sunday, 28 June 2009 15:29:49 GMT

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