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

RE: Revised draft of CBD

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:15:50 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50A1DF2@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: <eric@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Karsten Otto [mailto:otto@math.fu-berlin.de]
> Sent: 07 October, 2004 15:22
> 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
> Hello,
> Congratulations on the revised CBD document[1]. I find it 
> very helpful to
> put CBDs in the right light, in particular the sections on application
> issues. I'm also glad to have to original CBD back :-)

Me too ;-)

> Reading through the section on alternative forms reminded me of a
> point raised by Eric Prud'hommeaux [2] about "arcs-in" knowledge.
> The Symmetric CBD is a partial solution to this issue, but not in
> cases where no symmetric properies exist. As a practical example,
> during graph inspection I sometimes find myself in need to ask the
> question "tell me *who uses* this resource".
> While this departs from the original CBD question of "tell me 
> about this 
> resource", I believe it to be a common enough case to deserve its own 
> "optimal alternative form". This Concise Bounded Usage 
> Description (CBUD)
> can easily be dervied from the original CBD definition by exchanging 
> "subject" and "object", plus a minor modification regarding 
> reifications:
> [snip]

I haven't had time to fully digest this yet as I've been bogged
down with some other stuff, but will get to it soon.

Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 07:17:42 UTC

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