- From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:05:27 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>
you might also get multiple valid resultsets per query, depending on the power of the KB. On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@NineByNine.org] > > Sent: 23 January 2003 21:12 > > To: Seaborne, Andy > > Cc: 'public-esw@w3.org' > > Subject: Re: Vocabulary for result sets > > > > ... > > > > > Hmmm... I wonder of there should be links to, or identifiers of, the > > knowledge-base and query used, so that valid results from > > different queries > > can be differentiated. In practice, I think this kind of > > testing is a > > relatively closed-world activity, so maybe it doesn't matter. > > > > Graham, > > Good point. A number of properties to annotate the result set would be > good. Of course, nothing stops any properties being added ... but putting > them in the vocabulary encourages their use. > > Are there any suitable properties from other vocabularies to reuse? > > Also - this could be the result from a query, not just recording information > for a testcase. In this case, we still have a query->single graph approach > but the presentation of the results isn't a subgraph of the original KB, but > an encoding of the variable bindings. Each solution can be substituted into > the pattern for the query to generate a sequence of subgraphs, each of which > satisfy the query but the result set graph does not feel like knowledege > extraction anymore. > > Andy > > >
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 10:06:46 UTC