W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:39:39 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f2bbcc179d4ea8b@[]>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 08:19:28PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>  Kendall,
>>  I don't see this as needing to go in the candidate requirements.  It doesn't
>>  seem to be a top level requirement to me.  Maybe I was just assuming it
>>  would happen.
>I don't care about it going into the list of reqs as an end in
>itself. I only care because that seems the only way to ensure that it
>*gets done*.
>Which is to say that I was not assuming it would happen otherwise.
>Plus, if I don't offer requirements, it seems I put myself, my
>institution,  and my AC in a worse position vis-a-vis formal
>objections than if I do.
>I'm finding that being editor *and* arguing for requirements is
>significantly burdensome. In fact, I was kinda hoping that since I
>help *everyone* polish their requirements, that I might get some
>reciprocation from other members of this WG. After all, I never
>consult my own position before helping people craft language, even for
>requirements I think mad. (But maybe this is editor special pleading
>and in bad taste, in which case: my apologies! :>)
>>  I see the requirements list as the the most important ones.  Was there a
>>  reason behind wanting it in the list that means it is significant enough?
>Well, I think it's important; I think, per Charter 1.8, that it's in
>scope, and I think that if it's not on the list explicitly, it may not
>get done.
>Not sure what else there is to say, other than that you hit spot on
>the use cases I had in mind in yr reply to Steve. (Our photo
>annotation tool would benefit greatly; it asks its server for
>instances of foaf:Person and instances of the subclasses of
>foaf:Person. Doing that in a clean, concise and standardized way is a
>big win, IMO.)

Well, that's easy: two queries:

??x rdf:type foaf:Person .
??x rdf:type ?y .
?y rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Person .

Or did you want subclass closure to be invoked automatically in the 
second case?



IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 13:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:26 UTC