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

RE: Revised draft of CBD

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:29:03 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD09@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <leo@gnowsis.com>
Cc: <eric@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Leo Sauermann [mailto:leo@gnowsis.com]
Sent: 05 October, 2004 17:11
To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
Cc: eric@w3.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: Revised draft of CBD


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? 

I use curl a great deal to interact with our URIQA-enlightened servers
using the URIQA HTTP methods (it's unfortunate that the Sun Java API
is so anal about the use of novel methods -- I've tried to get that
addressed, but it seems like a "religious" crusade to protect programmers
from themselves... maybe it's time to (again) try to push that issue...)
Try the following:
curl -X MGET "<URI>"
where <URI> is any of the following
 <http://sw.nokia.com/id/cfa26f83-32b0-4c3c-9d8c-3db5a054e3f5-11356/Multi_Player_MIDP_Game_Programming_v1_0_zh_ch.pdf> http://sw.nokia.com/id/cfa26f83-32b0-4c3c-9d8c-3db5a054e3f5-11356/Multi_Player_MIDP_Game_Programming_v1_0_zh_ch.pdf
 <http://sw.nokia.com/id/cfa26f83-32b0-4c3c-9d8c-3db5a054e3f5-11344/Professional_Support_Users_Guide_v1_1.pdf> http://sw.nokia.com/id/cfa26f83-32b0-4c3c-9d8c-3db5a054e3f5-11344/Professional_Support_Users_Guide_v1_1.pdf
or any other URI beginning with  <http://sw.nokia.com/> http://sw.nokia.com/... which you 
might encounter in any of the returned descriptions.

especially for the new "IFP" and "Symmetric". 

The reason why I reinstated the original, more general definition
for CBD was that that is the form of description employed by URIQA
and implemented in our solutions.
I also, to my surprise and shame, realized after adding the support
for inverse functional properties, that that was incompatible with
the URIQA interface, as discussed in the revised document. Thus it
seemed best to address this alternate form of description separately,
as has been done.
At present, I do not have any complete/functional implementations
for either symmetric concise bounded descriptions or inverse functional
concise bounded descriptions. 
My own view on SCBDs and IFCBDs are that they have much less general
utility than CBDs, and none of our own application requirements 
would suggest choosing either over the presently deployed use of CBDs.
Having them clearly identified, and having support for them in a
general purpose RDF API/toolkit/triplestore would nevertheless be
a good thing. And for URIQA services, SCBDs are a potential alternative
to the default form of response based on CBDs.


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. 

Earlier incarnations of the Nokia specific extensions to the core URIQA 
interface included parameters to e.g. omit reification, but when the
R&D implementation was distilled down to meet our explicit business
requirements for actual service deployment, that and other features,
were removed.
Whether such features will ever be re-introduced is unknown.


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

I plan(ned) to take a similar approach, but haven't thus far.



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


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 Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:30:27 UTC

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