- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:37:44 +0200
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@gmuer.ch>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/30/06, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: Thanks for spelling out your position. > Problem 1: an RDF document can be written in multiple similar vocabularies. > Use Accept-vocabulary to ask the server to return the statement written in > certain vocabularies but not the other. > > My position for this problem (let's call it alternative vocabulary problem). > It is O.K., fundamentally. But I don't think it is practical. It puts too > much burdern on ontology developer. I don't see how there would be *any* burden on the ontology developer... It is cheaper and easier doing this > sort of things at other places. Well maybe, but without a concrete proposal + use cases it's hard to compare (with a SPARQL endpoint presumably being the alternative). But my suspicion is that in quite a few circumstances graph negotiation (better term?) would be more convenient - the mobile device case mentioned by Richard in particular. > Problem 2: Let's call this subgraph problem. I.e., the Accept-Vocabulary > ask the server to return only those subgraphs that the client request. > > My position to this problem. No. It is fundemantally wrong and we should do > it with a web service etc., using SPARQL. Hmm, Problem 1 delivers subgraphs, though presumably with inference they would be equivalent. I still don't see anything wrong in the fundamentals of delivering alternate/subgraphs (different representations, thread passim) but coming up with working definitions on how it might operate could be tricky (but maybe worth it ;-) Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 30 July 2006 07:37:58 UTC