W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Summary: Protocol & URI Schema & UNIQA (Mendez, Sherman, Stickler, Sauermann)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:28:57 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBBD5@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <leo@ist.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <shermanmonroe@yahoo.com>, <zednenem@psualum.com>


> @Patrick: what useful Nokia information do you have for us that we can
> query?

See http://sw.nokia.com/examples.html and the terminal descriptions.

Eventually, all public knowledge about all Nokia products, tools and
developer related resources will be published on the sw.nokia.com site.

The present incarnation of the site is a testbed for this later
official service, expected to be launched this Fall.

> -URIQA-
> How would you decide that a server has URIQA and what will trigger you
> to make a GET/PUT/DELETE request with URI-Resolution-Mode: Description

This is answered in http://sw.nokia.com/URIQA.html, a URIQA enlightened
server will return the header URI-Resolution-Mode: Description in an
OPTIONS response to indicate that it is semantic web enabled.

> Do you have an idea how to manage the Website as a whole ?

Lots, but I think that this should not be defined in any spec.

Each site has its own dynamics and needs, so whether representations
and descriptions are managed in a similar manner with a similar tool
or managed separately depends on each case.

> URLs on websites are in permanent change, 

Not COOL URLs ;-)

> what will be "best practice"
> to synchronize the Representation and Description ?

Again, I see this as an area where products can differentiate themselves.
And different sites will need more or less capable/flexible solutions.

> -URIQA Implementation-
> how would an Apache2.0 module look like that does the URIQA stuff ?
>   (patrick used TomCat & Jena)

Technically, the servlets com.nokia.sw.SWE and com.nokia.sw.URIQA are
not specific to Tomcat but should run unchanged on any Servlet 2.x
compliant server.

I expect it would be very straightforward to write an Apache module
(or extention to pretty much any CM solution) to accomplish the same.

> -EMAILs and STRANGE URIS-
> How to get the "Description/RDF" Triples about my email address
> "leo@ist.org" ?

Presuming ist.org is hosting a URIQA servlet, then perhaps:

http://ist.org/URIQA?uri=mailto:leo@ist.org

And of course, one can obtain descriptions about any resource denoted
by any URI irregardless of URI scheme from any URIQA servlet, which
is beneficial both for non-http: URIs as well as for third party
knowledge.

E.g. consider someday being able to query

http://sw.google.com/URIQA?uri=mailto:leo@ist.org

> -COMPLEX QUERIES-
> Should we think about a protocol for "RDQL" or even "Daml Query DQL" ?
> yes, we should because the bigger index servers will do some 
> inference 
> work for us. If we can include the RDQL stuff, too, searches can be
> made distributed.

I think that general queries are complementary to URIQA, and that alot
of standardized SW behavior can be achieved with the more constrained
URIQA model as folks work towards a more standardized general purpose
query language.

Any given URIQA enlightened server can also provide for general
queries, but standardization in this area will understandably take
some time.

So I wouldn't want to see the more generalized and simple solution to knowledge
discovery addressed by URIQA (and other proposals) be held up while folks work 
on the more specialized and involved issue of general knowledge queries.

> -Concise Bounded Descriptions CBD-
> What about a less restricting definition of it ?
> Musicbrainz has already a running service that solved the problem with
> "depth", 
> we could introduce a "level" of CBD:
> "CBD:plain" just the uri and connected unnamed uris
> "CBD:withLabels" get me at least the human readable labes of connected
> URIs
> "CBD:withSemantic" get a wider view of the resource that was 
> defined by
> a human. (f.e. a CBD of a Music Album CD also retrieves the Artist and
> the Tracks)
> see [MUSIC]

A particular implementation of the URIQA model could include a parameter
to indicate that more than a concise bounded description should be
returned, based on a given depth, but I don't know if such functionality
should be part of the specification as it applies to any arbitrary
semantic web enabled server.

At most, it would be an optional feature, I think.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 08:29:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT