W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2003

Re: RDF query testcases?

From: Matt Biddulph <matt@picdiary.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:04 +0000
To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>, www-rdf-rules <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, Steve Cayzer <Steve_Cayzer@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, mb <mb@picdiary.com>
Message-ID: <20030121104504.GA25926@geekbox>

Linkdump:

http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000001.html # marking up RSS with
wordnet and friends
http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000009.html # wordnet-based
search-engine
http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000010.html # wordnet-based dmoz-style
picture browsing
http://www.hackdiary.com/cats.html#rdf # related RDF stuff

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Matt.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:24:34AM +0000, Libby Miller wrote:
> yes I really like this idea. I was thinking along these lines because of
> a demo that Matt Biddulph has for classifying his photos - although I
> can't find the reference - Matt?
> 
> thanks very much Jeen for the clarification.
> 
> Libby
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > This thread has provided the answer to a problem that I've been mulling over
> > for a few weeks ;-)
> >
> > Some blogging tools (such as Movable Type) allow the user to categorise
> > their posts, but the categories used are totally arbitrary, just strings
> > decided by the user. To be able to index across systems, some sharing of
> > taxonomies would be needed. It occurred to me that a lookup of something
> > like Wordnet would allow the mapping of Cats (in Danny's blog) to
> > http://whatever/worndet#Cat and thence to Cats (in Libby's blog). So it
> > looks like pretty much any of these query tools would be up to the job. The
> > next stages are I suppose setting the 'dictionary' up as a service, then
> > implementing a user-transparent interface.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Danny.
> >
> >
> > -----------
> >
> > http://dannyayers.com
> >
> > "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer
> >
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
> > >[mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jeen Broekstra
> > >Sent: 21 January 2003 10:27
> > >To: Libby Miller
> > >Cc: www-rdf-rules
> > >Subject: Re: RDF query testcases?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Libby Miller wrote:
> > >
> > >> this is great, thanks Jeen.
> > >>
> > >> quick question: Sesame supports RDF schema right? so if I did a query
> > >> in RDQL over Sesame over an ontology like Wordnet (e.g.
> > >> http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Person) would I get both Person and
> > >> Life_form as the classes of an instance of Person?
> > >
> > >Yes.
> > >
> > >My RDQL is somewhat shaky, but the query would be something like:
> > >
> > >SELECT ?c
> > >WHERE (?p, <rdf:type>, <wn:Person>),
> > >       (?p, <rdf:type>, ?c)
> > >
> > >Right?
> > >
> > > > What if I did the same query in RQL?
> > >
> > >The same. In Sesame, the deductive closure is computed independently of
> > >the query module, so both RQL and RDQL could retrieve all these answers.
> > >
> > >The RQL query in this case would be something like:
> > >
> > >SELECT typeOf( p )
> > >FROM   wn:Person { p }
> > >
> > >The difference is in the fact that RQL can explicitly express certain
> > >types of schema semantics in the query, making it possible to express
> > >queries about the schema more easily, and sometimes go beyond what's
> > >expressible in an RDF-only QL.
> > >
> > >A simple example of this is direct subclass relations (A is a direct
> > >subclass of B iff there is no C: A < C < B): this is a relation that
> > >would be rather awkward to express in RDQL, but RQL has a special
> > >language feature for it.
> > >
> > >> I'm asking this because I was asked to recommend a tool that could be
> > >> used for querying a fairly simple, heirarchical ontology (actually
> > >> more like a thesaurus - MeSH,
> > >> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html), such that you could, say,
> > >> ask for all research groups with 'abdomen' or anything above it in the
> > >> heirarchy as their descriptive keyword. (I'm now also wondering whether
> > >> things below it in the heirarchy might be more useful...)
> > >>
> > >> Does that make any sense?
> > >
> > >This would be fairly straightforward to express, I imagine, so yes :)
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >Jeen
> > >--
> > >jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl
> > >aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/
> > >julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands
> > >tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 05:51:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:10 GMT