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

RE: URIQA thwarted by context problems?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:34:39 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A56471A3@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, <giovanni@wup.it>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext 
> Sent: 11 October, 2004 13:18
> To: pdawes@users.sourceforge.net; giovanni@wup.it
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URIQA thwarted by context problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > CBDlike have a very 
> >  > limited computational cost and can be considered as the 
> "standard 
> >  > question to ask" the "standard questions that anyone is 
> willing to 
> >  > answer" (becouse you cant really say "i am open for 
> > arbitrary queries" 
> >  > without opening your computer to easy denial of services).
> 
> 
> I had wanted (and forgot) to comment on this very important point that
> Giovanni makes about the run-time cost of arbitrary query 
> support, which
> has been rattling around in my subconscious yet I've never 
> gotten around
> to explicitly stating myself, at least as clearly as Giovanni 
> does here.
> 
> There will likely be many cases where server owners would 
> like to publish
> knowledge about key resources under their 
> management/control/ownership,
> but do not wish to, or are unnable to, support fully general RDF query
> facilities.
> 
> The benefit of simply adding URIQA support to their server, 

Or... eventually... simply employing the URIQA support
provided by the server platform out of the box...  ;-)

Patrick


> which imposes
> minimal implementational and run-time costs, should not be 
> underestimated;
> even when tools emerge allowing the deployment of full DAWG (SPARQL)
> solutions.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 10:35:47 GMT

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