- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:47:43 +0000
- To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Just a quick follow up on this thread ahead of the WG telecon in half an hour's time or so - I've been playing with the POWDER Lite example in [1] and have made a few corrections, generated a graph etc. - something I always find makes the RDF easier to understand. Phil. [1] http://www.fosi.org/projects/powder/bristol.html Phil Archer wrote: > > Hi all, > > (SWCG as input to telecon on Friday). > > As previously discussed, JJC, Dan Bri and Stuart W kindly gave up > practically their whole day to look at the POWDER issues yesterday (and > Jeremy's been posting a lot of stuff to www-archive recently too [1]). > > First of all I would like to record my thanks to them and to HP for > their hospitality. > > I've tried to capture the output of that meeting as best I can in a > document that sets out the problem (as I understand them) and the > solution that is now being proposed. It would be wrong to post that doc > on the group's web space (I've been in trouble for doing something > similar before :-) ) so I've posted it at [2] and included some > disclaimers. Any and all errors are mine. > > In brief - we do without reification and named graphs, we avoid non-SW > specialists having to handle complex OWL constructs and we use GRDDL to > anchor simplified RDF/XML documents that have a limited semantics in > something that is consistent with formal logic. (Note to self: take > carrot when next visiting Bristol to feed the rabbits that can sometimes > appear from underneath Jeremy's hat). > > We noted some action items which I'd like to record here (and they'll > make sense in the context of [2]): > > Action: Dan to write warning paragraph concerning risks of creating > blank nodes with properties. > > Action: JJC to write output, i.e. verbose RDF/OWL doc that says the same > as the example. > > WG: Include notes on the declarative semantics of pre and post transform > in the documents. 'Operational semantics' applies to pre-transform (what > in [2] I call POWDER Lite), 'formal semantics' apply only to > post-transform (POWDER Full). > > POWDER Full allows more sophisticated reasoning, profile matching. > Importantly, it also provides the academic rigour for the pre-transform > version (POWDER Lite). > > Action: JJC to write to POWDER group to explain the problem of dealing > with sets of resources cf. sets of URIs. (end result is likely to be > POWDER only applies to sets of URIs). > > Action: JJC to re-draft formal semantics [3] to match URI-based approach. > > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/ > [2] http://www.fosi.org/projects/powder/bristol.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0042.html > > > -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 15:48:00 UTC