- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:00:01 -0500
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>OK Rob, sounds fine... >(will sleep over it once more :)) >sounds like a separation of concerns Right, exactly, and I think its a good separation. Still, unlike Rob, I think that we could reasonably approach the 'inference issue' by seeing if we can come up with some way for a query to indicate to a server (sorry I keep using this term, I can't think of a better one: the engine or entity to which the query is directed and which checks it against a graph: do we have a name for this?) WHICH graph it wants the query to be directed to. Since 'graph' here can be a virtual graph defined partly by inference closures (and may in fact be infinite in some cases, eg when thinking seriously about datatyped literals), a simple idea like just having a URI for each graph, or one graph per server, seems inadequate. So can we think of a way for a query to indicate which conceptual/virtual graph it is intended to be evaluated with respect to? For example (complete straw man) maybe the query could refer to a source listing a set of rules which the virtual graph is supposed to be closed under, or some such. Or it could be as coarse as just specifying plain/rdf/rdfs/datatyped as options, where each of these refers to a semantic extension and the graph is supposed to be closed under all inferences which are valid wrt that extension. Pat > >-- >Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > > >"Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com> >07/05/2004 01:55 > > > To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA > cc: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, ><public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org> > Subject: RE: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a >better name...) > > >I'm suggesting that an RDF query language should not specify that the >triple > >:Tony a :SEAFOOD > >exists. It's RDFS's job (or OWL's job, or SWRL's job, or something) to >specify that. >I'm suggesting that if there is some server sitting somewhere which >happens to know this fact somehow (whether it derived it from RDF+RDFS >or from somewhere else), then you should be able to query it. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:36 PM >> To: Rob Shearer >> Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org; >> public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org >> Subject: RE: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...) >> >> >> RobS wrote: >> [...] >> > 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. >> >> Rob, I'm completely confused, do you really mean that one >> can't query >> >> :Tony a :CRAB. >> :CRAB rdfs:subClassOf :SEAFOOD. >> >> to get an answer like >> >> :Tony a :SEAFOOD >> >> ?? >> (if no, then I go to bed... :)) >> >> >> -- >> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ >> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 14:00:04 UTC