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

Re: Revised draft of CBD

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:11:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4162AB81.50206@gnowsis.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: eric@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
http://swdev.nokia.com/uriqa/CBD.html


Gratulations to this document!

I have seen this ongoing discussion and it was quite exhausting, so 
thank you Patrick for summarizing the ideas so pointly.

As a developer, I state that the CBD and its now identified siblings 
"Symmetric" and IFP are VERY VERY USEFUL for my work. Also as researcher 
I see very much potential in your work. I have been following this 
discussion for at least a year now.

We will try to get CBD runninng in Gnowsis asap.
so expect a demostrator that will show your emails, photos, files as 
CBD's over URIQA.

I will implement this as a java servlet that runs in jetty (or tomcat) 
and accesses gnowsis.

*Patrick*: I will bug you for the exact interfaces for the URIQA 
protocol, do you have some Uriqa dumps available, like example 
conversations between client and server -  HTTP gets and sample results. 
could you post dumps somewhere?
especially for the new "IFP" and "Symmetric".

we had this "chatty bounded description" idea running around in gnowsis. 
It is an implementation that is similiar to your "limit" things. For 
performance, f.e. we spare the email body and attachements from the CBD 
of an email.
perhaps dfki and gnowsis can offer some explicit code for these things.

btw: I plan to use OWL properties to check for IFP and symmetric, did 
you do this so also?

cheers
Leo

Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 05.10.2004 14:19,  da 
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com schrieb:

>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
>goodwill 
>for the benefit of all concerned, and taking fully into account the
>context
>and manner in which the document is presented [3], are most welcome.
>
>Regards,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>[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 14:11:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT