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

Re: MGET and machine processing

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:19:46 +0200
Cc: "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Message-Id: <AD386D67-1FF1-11D8-9FAA-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>


On Wednesday, Nov 26, 2003, at 01:12 Europe/Helsinki, ext Jos De_Roo 
wrote:

>
> PatrickS:
> [...]
>>> We
>>
>> Who is "we"? Agfa? Some other group?
>
> Myself and Euler :)

;-)

>
>>> assume that Web and SW are unified/reaching their potential
>>> when we simply follow http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Reach
>>> So log:semantics can easily result in an actual HTTP GET of
>>> for instance
>>>   eg:r1 eg:p1 eg:r2.
>>>   eg:r2 eg:p2 eg:r3.
>>>   eg:r3 eg:p3 eg:r1.
>>> which is just an example of 3 statements about 3 resources
>>> but which is not particularly connected to (and so MGET-able
>>> from) one of those 3 resources.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Jos, but this seems to completely miss the issue.
>>
>> I'm fully aware that one can GET an entire RDF document. But while
>> a particular document might constitute a concise bounded description
>> of a particular resource, it need not (and usually won't) so to
>> that log:semantics is completely useless.
>>
>> I'm really unsure what point you were trying to make here. If
>> you mean that log:semantics and document-based interchange
>> provide the SW, then I strongly disagree.
>
> My opinion is not important.

Well, I for one consider your opinion very important, which
is why I wanted to understand your comments.

> I'm just testing
> that design and haven't experienced an issue
> observable as a test case.
>

Fair enough.

>> They are useful components of knowledge interchange,
>
> That seems a fair aknowledge
>
>> but provide
>> far, far too coarse a granularity for efficient resource-centric
>> knowledge discovery.
>
> I'm trying to understand what you mean by that...
> Of course the (re)source (meta)data could live
> in rdbms's, triple stores, etc. The use of the word
> ``document'' is more in the sense of an RDF graph
> and an RDF formula imaginable as being something
> written on a separate and discrete sheet of paper.

OK. I was taking your use of the term 'document' to mean
RDF/XML instances per the typical case where a very
large number of related resources are described by
statements managed and identified as a whole.

But yes, one could consider a concise bounded description
of a particular resource encoded in RDF/XML as a "document".

I think, though, that it will be beneficial to maintain
a clear distinction between documents/files, graphs,
and descriptions, even though a description can be
realized and modelled as all three.

> Anyhow, Amen to your conclusion :)

Cheers,

Patrick


>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2003 04:34:40 GMT

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