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

Re: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:23:24 +0200
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Message-Id: <F9CFF1C0-1BFB-11D8-9B12-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>


On Thursday, Nov 20, 2003, at 16:23 Europe/Helsinki, ext Mark Baker 
wrote:

>
> (trimming www-rdf-rules - doesn't seem relevant)
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:28:47AM +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> Well, there's a difference between the logical operation and what 
>>> goes
>>> out "on the wire".  One could use RFC 3229 to send & request deltas,
>>> for
>>> example.
>>>
>>
>> That presumes that the client wants, or is even capable, of recieving
>> the entire model.
>
> Hey, if you're arguing for the need for query capabilities, you're
> preaching to the choir.  But let me query with GET, please.
>

GET is fine, and optimal, and correct for general querying to a known
service, and that's what we use and what I advocate.

But there remains the issue of bootstrapping. What does one do when
one has a URI *and nothing else*?

Why should a SW agent not be able to obtain a description of the
denoted resource *as easily as* a web agent can obtain a representation?

Why should a SW agent be a "second class" web citizen, having to
muck about with registries and/or multiple system calls simply to
get the concise, authoritative semantics associated with a particular 
URI?

If *you* are not writing SW agents, then I can hardly expect you to
care about such things. But as URIQA imposes *zero* impact on existing
web applications, yet greatly facilitates "atomic" knowledge discovery 
for
SW agents, why would you be so strongly opposed?

I've already conceded that one should add new methods rarely, if
at all -- just as with new URI schemes -- yet have also argued, from
real world implementational experience, that the new methods are
necessary. If you can prove otherwise, fine, I'm all ears. But I
fail to understand your opposition to solutions such as URIQA in
the absence of either solid arguments/evidence that such solutions are
not needed or that better solutions to the same problems exist.

Regards,

Patrick
Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 03:27:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT