W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2009

Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:30:16 -0400
Message-ID: <1e89d6a40911011130j5e7fe187q5d7aed481dc828f9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Hi Sandro,

Now is probably a good time for the next versions of the RDF and SPARQL
specs to recognize that most of the world's economy runs on SQL-style *closed
world* negation in its database applications.

Adding closed world negation (and also closed world aggregation) to
RDF/SPARQL semantics could be done in an upward compatible manner.  This
would in particular reduce the need for ugly workarounds like "filter" --
the many examples of which on the discussion lists do at least illustrate
that CW negation is needed.

Including the ability to "close" is really just commonsense -- how can you
add up a list of numbers if you cannot find out what the list consists of?

The following is an exercise with negation and aggregation showing how to do
the above, that folks can view, run and change using browsers:

   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RDFQueryLangComparison1.agent

W3C could also usefully consider adopting the rule language used therein and
in [1] as a standard for both syntax and (model theoretic, human
comprehensible) semantics.  Is anyone interested in supporting that
consideration with a financial contribution to W3C?  If so, we would be glad
to help with the technical work.

Just my 3 cents.

                                    -- Adrian

[1] Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and
RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
> OWL 2 added a bunch of stuff to OWL that users wanted and implementors
> were willing to tackle.  Are there things like that around RDF?
>
> My own answer is in a recent blog post:
>     http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/
>
> What's yours?
>
> Two quick caveats:
>
>   * W3C takes backward compatibility very seriously.  If you're
>     proposing something that doesn't have a solid migration story,
>     please call it something else, something that doesn't look like
>     it's taking over from RDF.  Serious proposals should allow
>     existing data-consumer and data-producer systems to keep working,
>     with only gentle pressure for upgrading as people want to
>     interoperate with the new features.
>
>   * While public input (like this) is welcome, and good for laying
>     out the options, to actually have a seat at the table in deciding
>     what W3C does next, an organization has to join W3C and help pay
>     the bills.  See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership for
>     details.  Argue facts and designs here, but priorities there.
>
> Thanks.
>
>    -- Sandro (W3C staff contact for RIF, OWL, SPARQL, eGov)
>
>
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 19:30:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:32 GMT