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

Re: Revised draft of CBD

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:16:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4169B4D6.1070008@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> And if a CBUD is not a subset of a SCBD, per the present definition
> of an SCBD, it may be reasonable to modify the definition of an SCBD
> accordingly to address your use case while still allowing effective
> use of the minimal URIQA interface.

If one starts to let in more generalized notions of subgraphs, one needs 
to make sure that in the euphoria of the envisioned richer data sets, 
one does not inadvertantly get more than one bargains for.  For example, 
every resource is related to every other, if OWL is in play, because 
their types are all subclasses of owl:Thing.  I don't think that anyone 
wants to end up with that in their supposedly bounded subgraphs!


Tom P

Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2004 22:15:59 UTC

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