Re: taxonomy for use case requirements

Eric wrote:
> During the last telecon, I suggested that we use terms from RDF Query
> and Rules Framework [1] to describe the requirements for each use
> case. The requirements could be layed out similarly to the language
> characteristics in the RDF Query Survey [2].
> I don't expect the framework to be complete, but I do expected that it
> will serve as a good starting point. We can argue about terms like
> disjunction in the abstract, or we can have them layed out in a
> document describing and constrasting them. Hopefully this can save us
> a little bit of tedium.

Concerning "disjunction" I tried a similar test case

:Xavier :worksAt :night.
:Xavier :worksIn :systemMaintenance.

and asking
{_:Y :worksIn :processControl} :or
{_:Y :worksIn :systemMaintenance; :worksAt :night}.

we got a direct answer
{:Xavier :worksIn :processControl} :or
{:Xavier :worksIn :systemMaintenance. :Xavier :worksAt :night}. 

and we just assume implications such as
?P => {?P :or ?Q}.
?Q => {?P :or ?Q}.
(but had to fix some "variable" issues
in the euler running code...)

Of course, posing 2 questions and merging
their answer graphs should also work.

> [1]
> [2]

very interesting

> -- 
> -eric
> office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
>                         Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
>                         5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
>                         JAPAN
>         +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
> cell:   +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia)
> (
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.

Jos De Roo, AGFA

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 10:37:48 UTC