RE: UC&R 1.56

-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 11 May 2004 22:45
> 
> Peeps,
> 
> The latest version of our doc is 1.56. Some of the changes I
> made since the telcon:
> 
> * added intra-doc links between UCs and Reqs/DesObjs; this needs to be
>   fleshed out but EricP gave me a good start.
> 
> * some wordsmithing changes in a few spots
> 
> * I changed 4.6 (from RDFS Query to RDFS/OWL Query) a bit to more
>   accurately express what my users (and my AC) really want. As with
>   most of the Design Objectives, this one is meant to describe an
>   *optional* feature, so adding OWL to RDFS imposes no extra burdens  
> on anyone necessarily. 

Could you (or your AC rep :-) say how this differs from the charter
requriment "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.
]]

I *think* the req is saying that it can be possible to query the non-iferred
relationships explicitly.  Does this have to happen in one query expression?
That is, some parts of the query are affected by inference where other parts
are explicitly not.

C.f. serql:directSubClassOf
http://www.openrdf.org/doc/users/ch05.html#d0e1239

and
http://jena.sourceforge.net/inference/index.html#directRelations

Users who use this include people writing editors and browsers.

	Andy

> 
> * I added a status line to each Req and DO. -- Someone please check to
>   make sure I've got the right ones marked approved? I did it
> from memory.
> 
> Some interesting technical discussion today, but I didn't see
> anything that would shift consensus.
> 
> Best,
> Kendall

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 06:22:25 UTC