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

UC&R: comments on v1.74

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:12:53 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808031A94F8@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

I would be happy to publish this version as our working document.



Section 1: Intro

"in industry and in open source projects" - some things are both. Would
s/industry/commercial/ be better?

Talks of standardization - doesn't W3C do "recommendations" so as to be
clear they have no legal significance (c.f. safety standards).

"less urgent objectives"  I see the objectives as being things that are more
difficult to determine whether we have met them or not.  e.g. Human-friendly
Syntax (well, app-writer friendly!) is very important.

Section 2: Use Cases 

Very few of the UCs have "3.1 graph matching" as a requirement yet it
probably applies to nearly all of them.

Quite a few UCs have "Bookmarkable queries (3.8)" when I think it is just
the fact the query can be written down in some syntax. The queries may be
regualrly issued over SOAP/POST.

2.2: Finding Information about Motorcycle Parts (Supply Chain Management)

Add motivates 3.4 subgraph results because the mounting bracket includes
details of the screews needed.  The query could not be written to anticipate
every single possible extra piece of information that could be returned.

I don't understand why "User-specifiable Serialization (4.4)" is motivated.

2.3: Finding Unknown Media Objects
2.4: Monitoring News Events.

Both these are examples of bookmarkable queries being about recording the
s/bookmarkable queries (3.8)/Human-friendly Syntax (4.1)/

2.4: Add motivates "Aggregate Queries" (combine results).

2.5 Avoiding Traffic Jams

Motivates: 3.3 Extensible Value testing

I didn't see the connection to "Result Limits (3.10)" if we have
"bandwidth-efficient protocol"

Not sure this is a good example of the "Aggregate Queries" because different
quesies go to different sources based what they are known to contain.  This
makes it different to 2.4 where the same vocabulary is present at each

2.6: Discovering What People Say about News Stories

s/bookmarkable queries (3.8)/Human-friendly Syntax (4.1)/

2.8: Sharing Vacation Photos

Don't see the connection ot "Non-existent Triples (4.3)"  I would not be
worried if some techncial requirments are not directly connected to UC
because the need for the requirment may not clearly be visible at the
application/UI level.

2.9 Finding Input and Output Document for Test Cases
Motivates: "3.1 RDF Graph Pattern Matching" and "3.2 Variable Binding
Results", but not "User specifiable serialization" (I wasn't assuming the
one line per result stuff was done by the query system).

3 Requirements

I would s/mandatory/to be expected/ 

3.9 Bandwidth-efficient Protocol

This seems to be a difficult-to-quantify aspect and so is a design
objective.  I am not unhappy if it remains in the requriments.

4 Design Objectives

4.4 User-specifiable Serialization

If this is saying RDF/XML vs application/N3 or whatever, it doesn't seem to
be very strong.  If this is saying that it could be XHTML as the
serialization, then I think it gets outside of RDF data access - that is not
to say that it isn't worthwhile but I wonder if the WG has the time to cover

4.5 Aggregate Query

I suggest making this clearly about combining results:

s/against/on each of the/

that is, the result of an aggregate query is the merge of the results of
executing the query on each of the two or more graphs.
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 11:13:13 UTC

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