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

Re: Revised draft of CBD

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni@wup.it>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:04:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4162A9F2.1080004@wup.it>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: mbatsis@geekologue.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Patrick :-) I really think the concept of MSG (minimal self containe 
graph [1]) should pop in place ..
a Symmetric CBD (which i'll call it RDFN [1] since this definition came 
earlier ;-) )
is really made of  the union of all the MSG .
BASICALLY you can think there is one MSG per outgoing triple.. but not 
quite.. in case of 2 triples having the same blank node as a target this 
is not true (but this case is covered ) . The reason why MSG are worth 
mentioning is that they are the minimal unit of contributed information 
and can have a digital signature on themself in a elegant way, that is, 
just a single reified triple.  I know the "quadruple" people probably 
dont have need for this but since in DBin [2] we're sticking to the good 
old triple model we kind of like this.

being that the term "minimal" is pretty justified (in msg) and that a 
SCBD/RDFN is a list of them  maybe a  possile name could be List of 
Minimal Annotation(s)? LMA ? dont know. Just ideas here. of course :-)

I am fairly entusiastic about this sort of things :-) the computational 
tractability of RDFNs are what make them.. a great tool for semantic web 
spread really.. as they allow "open" p2p scenarios (as we argue in the 
paper, those whee you dont want otheres to be ideally capable of hogging 
your server with a single query). ..
So shall we open a project collecting all the open source( NON GPL, will 
the nokia stuff on sourceforge be non gpl? ) implementations and tools ? 
i'll start contributing with the fore mentioned signign APIs
Maybe it might be a good idea to make a formal paper about these 
definitions/properties/apis ? :-) private communication will follow.

[1]  Toward widely deployable Semantic Web P2P: tools, definitions and 
the RDFGrowth algorithm.
[2]  www.dbin.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>I have revised [1] the CBD document [2] to (attempt to) address comments
>recieved both in conjunction with the W3C submission process as well as 
>in recent discussions on rdf-interest.
>Please give special attention to the note on terminology [3] provided at
>the end of this revised draft.
>Note that this revision reinstates the original definition of "concise
>bounded description", as used and deployed by URIQA and the Nokia
>Semantic Web server, and identifies a distict form of description
>"inverse functional concise bounded description" as one way to address
>the particular needs of certain applications. Please also note the
>implications of choosing one form of description over another on 
>minimal query interface requirements.
>Constructive, friendly comments on this revised document offered in
>for the benefit of all concerned, and taking fully into account the
>and manner in which the document is presented [3], are most welcome.
>[1] http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/
>[3] http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html#r1
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 14:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC