W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Ideas for store for IFP smushing

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:39:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CBEA695878CA104ABC6E74C6B176927507BEB0@DLTKVMX2.ads.deltek.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 2:52 AM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Morten Frederiksen [mailto:mof-rdf@mfd-consult.dk]
> > Sent: 15 August, 2004 21:00
[snip]
> > 
> > Hi Patrick et al,
> > 
> > On Tuesday 10 August 2004 08:21, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > > Note that the definition of a URIQA concise bounded 
> > resource description
> > > has been refined to be bounded by IFPs, to avoid "FOAF 
> bloat" where
> > > simple anonymous node closure produces an overly large 
> description.
> > > (c.f. http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html#cbd  for the 
> > draft revision)
> > Great move!

I believe concise bounded descriptions (CBD), in particular, and 
URIQA in general are important and promising contributions to 
making the semantic web. What is the status of efforts to make 
this work into a standard? Was a note ever submitted to the W3C as 
was suggested at one point? How has URIQA been received? What are 
the objections raised? I also have some questions (below) about the 
definition of CBDs.

[snip]
 
> How does the following definition work for you:
> 
> Given a URI denoting some resource, a "concise bounded 
> description" of that 
> resource is a set of RDF statements, explicitly asserted 

How is this "explicitly asserted" condition determined? 
I mean what counts as an "explicitly asserted RDF statement"? 
as opposed to a merely "asserted RDF statement"? or just a 
plain, let us say, "published RDF statement"?

> and/or inferred, 
> comprised of the following:
> 
>    1. Include all statements 

What is the intended scope of the "all" here? Possiblities 
include "all statements with the same namespace", or "all statements 
with this domain name", or "all statements anywhere on the web"? 

> where the subject of the 
> statement denotes 
>       the resource in question; 
> 
>       and
> 
>    2. Recursively, for all statements included in the 
> description thus far, 
>       for all anonymous node objects, include an "inverse 
> functional bounded 
>       description" of the anonymous resource as follows:
> 
>       If there exists at least one statement having the 
> anonymous resource 
>       as subject and where the predicate is an 
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, 
>       then
> 
>           * Include only those statements having the 
> anonymous resource as 
>             subject and where the predicate is an 
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, 
> 
>             and
> 
>           * If the object of such a statement is an anonymous 
> node, include the 
>             inverse functional bounded description of that 
> anonymous resource.
> 
>       Else,
> 
>           * Include all statements where the anonymous 
> resource is the subject; 
> 
>             and
> 
>           * If the object of such a statement is an anonymous 
> node, include the 
>             inverse functional bounded description of that 
> anonymous resource.
> 
>       and
> 
>    3. Recursively, for all statements included in the 
> description thus far, for 
>       all reifications of each statement, include the concise 
> bounded description 
>       of the rdf:Statement resource of each reification.
> 
> ???
[snip]

John Black

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Morten Frederiksen
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 14:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC