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 12:48:41 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f2cbcc17a761078@[]>
To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>  > Where in my requirement does it say "just a little bit of inference"?
>>  Where does it imply it? I must have missed that bit. :>
>>  And, besides, charter thwack:
>>    1.8 Derived Graphs
>>    The working group must recognize that RDF graphs are often
>>    constructed by aggregation from multiple sources and through logical
>>    inference, and that sometimes the graphs are never
>>    materialized. Such graphs may be arbitrarily large or infinite.
>We've been through this before, and I'm getting a bit tired of it.
>This sentence seems to be pointing out exactly what I've been saying: we
>can't standardize an implementation because implementations will have
>very different requirements depending on how they get their knowledge
>about the underlying data model.
>This paragraph even seems to make explicit that we're meant to be
>addressing how we query a graph, not some of the particular ways to form
>that graph from.
>If you've got some RDF and some RDFS, then there are two quite
>reasonable graphs: the raw RDF the way it's written, and a "completed"
>graph which has a whole bunch of inferred triples.

Right, exactly. In fact there are quite a number of these.

>(There are also a
>number of other graphs which can be derived from this data set in other
>ways, such as the possible graphs, the impossible graphs, the graphs
>with the directions of all edges reversed, the interesections or unions
>of any of these other graphs, etc.)

Yes, but lets keep things in perspective. How about only considering 
valid derivations from the basic graph, and maybe even requiring a 
closure relative to some subset of the complete set of rdfs rules: 

>An implementation should have the freedom to interpret a query against
>any of these "virtual" graphs, thus we cannot specify how an
>implementation operates.

No, but what we could consider is ways for the query to indicate 
which virtual graph it is intended to be aimed at. A server might 
just keep one base graph but treat the query differently if it 
indicates it is aimed at the closure under transitivity of 
rdfs:subClassOf, for example (rules rdfs6 and rdfs9).

>>  > What's more, adding support for just one particular flavor of
>>  > supplementary semantic knowledge (RDFS) is great way to
>>  kill off use of
>>  > any other knowledge sources.
>>  Uh... RDFS is hardly "one particular flavor of supplementary semantic
>>  knowledge". That's about as perverse a description as I can
>>  imagine. Besides, if you're worried about "killing off" OWL, that's an
>>  argument to do RDFS in 1.0 and OWL in 2.0, not an argument not to do
>>  RDFS at all.
>I think it's quite clear that sucking every possible type of querying
>into our specification is about the worst way to write a standard
>The fact that inferencing is very useful is an excellent reason to make
>sure our query language is compatible with use where RDF is the data
>model on which inferencing occurs.
>The fact the inferencing is a complex and open-ended problems and that
>we could not possibly address it (because the basic semantic encodings
>are still being standardized) is a pretty incontrovertable argument that
>we can't solve the inferencing problem. I think that's a good reason not
>to try.

Well, up to RDFS at least there is a complete set of rules which are 
pretty transparently related to the formal semantics, if we want to 
use them.

>Let's leave derived graphs and inferencing to working groups that know
>how to address them and confine ourselves to representing queries
>against the data model which underlies it all.

Im sympathetic to this pov, however.


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 13:49:09 UTC

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