RE: use case dc-02

These are my initials. It is only depicting that this is my second use case
I submitted.

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Katz [mailto:howardk@fatdog.com] 
Sent: jeudi 8 avril 2004 17:25
To: Dirk Colaert; Eric Prud'hommeaux
Cc: Rob Shearer; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Subject: RE: use case dc-02

Right. That makes sense. Are you referencing an existing document here? I
don't recognize the "dc-xx" numbering scheme.

Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dirk Colaert
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:06 AM
> To: 'Howard Katz'; Dirk Colaert; Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Cc: Rob Shearer; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: use case dc-02
>
>
>
> Use case dc-02: Query a query
>
> A server stores all queries committed. From time to time the security
> administrator wants to know who has tried to query on data which
> he/she had
> no access to.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Katz [mailto:howardk@fatdog.com]
> Sent: jeudi 8 avril 2004 16:14
> To: Dirk Colaert; Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Cc: Rob Shearer; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Requirement: queries written as RDF
>
>
> > >(2) If queries are represented in XML they can be treated as data
> > > and you can run XQueries over a collection of XQueries.
> >
> > That's interesting. A Query expressed in RDF could be treated as RDF. It
> > would be easy to do queries about queries. That's an argument for
> > using RDF
> > (or a subset, or a convertible format).
> >
> > All we have to do know is find a use case justifying this
> > requirement... :-)
>
> It does sound wonderful, doesn't it? I too would like to know
> what you would
> want to query in a query. Examples anyone ... ?
>
> >
> > Or do we have a solution without a problem?
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard Katz [mailto:howardk@fatdog.com]
> > Sent: mercredi 7 avril 2004 7:08
> > To: Eric Prud'hommeaux
> > Cc: Rob Shearer; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Requirement: queries written as RDF
> >
> >
> > I got several responses back from members of the Query wg on the XQueryX
> > question. I particularly liked this one. I don't know if it'll shed any
> > light on our own issues, but it's delightfully clear and succinct. The
> > author prefers to remain anonymous.
> >
> > In response to a question on why XQueryX:
> >
> > > (1) An XML-based syntax was considered easier for machines to
> > > generate and exchange than a human-oriented syntax that would
> > > require some sophisticated parsing.
> > > (2) If queries are represented in XML they can be treated as data
> > > and you can run XQueries over a collection of XQueries.
> > > (3) Since XML is known to be an answer to all questions, it must be
> > > an answer to the question "What would be a good format for expressing
> > > queries over XML data"?
> >
> > In response to a question on the technical difficulties that
> > arose once the
> > requirement was formulated:
> >
> > > Once the requirement for an XML query syntax was adopted,
> > > arguments immediately broke out over the level of detail at
> > which a query
> > > should be broken down into XML elements. The working group
> > finally settled
> > > on two separate approaches that represent extreme points on the
> > spectrum:
> > > (a) The whole query is wrapped in a <query> element, and otherwise
> > unchanged.
> > > This approach obviously does not take the XML syntax requirement very
> > seriously.
> > > (b) The query is parsed, and each and every node in the parse tree
> > (including individual
> > > operators, function calls, steps in path expressions, etc.) is
> > represented
> > by its own
> > > element, thus making the query incredibly verbose. This format is
> > obviously useless to humans.
> >
> > > At various times and places, people have attempted to define some
> > intermediate point
> > > between these two extremes. These attempts have always ended in
> > rancor and
> > controversy.
> >
> > Finally, in a follow-up clarification:
> >
> > > I believe that the editor of the XQueryX specification is currently
> > pursuing both approaches
> > > (a) minimal expansion and (b) maximal expansion. Both will be
> defined as
> > valid forms of
> > > XQueryX.
> >
> > Just to close on a personal note, I've always felt that XML is
> > the answer to
> > all questions. I'm now coming to feel increasingly that RDF is
> > even more so!
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 09:23:14AM -0700, Howard Katz wrote:
> > >
> > >    [snip ...]
> > >
> > > > > I certainly agree with the sentiments of the second, "human
> > readable"
> > > > > requirement. Interestingly enough, the third, "XML" requirement
> > > > has been the
> > > > > one that's caused the group the most difficulty to my
> > > > knowledge, and at the
> > > > > moment conformance with this requirement has been downgraded to
> > > > optional. I
> > > > > don't know what the major issues have been, but it might be
> > > > interesting to
> > > > > know, if only for the sake of curiosity.
> > > >
> > > > Can we go beyond the meta-lesson of "that may be hard. it's
> been hard
> > > > in XQuery" to some of the particular problems that
> requirement caused
> > > > the XQuery WG? Also, was this requirement born of some
> compelling use
> > > > cases, or a general notion that it's good practice to
> express anything
> > > > in XML?
> > >
> > > I wasn't trying to impart a particular lesson. My intention,
> not knowing
> > > what DAWG members know or don't know about it, was simply to
> > > provide data on
> > > the experience of the Query wg in the event that might prove
> > useful to the
> > > group. In response to your questions, I've asked several
> > members of the wg
> > > about their XQueryX experience. If they see fit to pass that on
> > > to me, I'll
> > > be happy to share it with the group.
> > >
> > > Howard
> > >
>

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 11:27:10 UTC