Re: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 17:21, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:56:06PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
[...]
> > If we're writing a brand new query language for RDF, in addition to the
> > one that already exists for XML, and then need another one for RDFS, and
> > then another for OWL, and then another for SWRL or whatever else ends up
> > in the layer cake, and so on and so on, then I think the W3C *really*
> > needs to rethink its architecture.
> 
> Wow. Talk about running full speed toward the slippery slope...!

How do you mean, Kendall? (with an e, an a, and 2 l's!)

It seems to me that this objective is just a restatement of this
bit from our charter:

[[
2.1 Specification of RDF Schema/OWL semantics

The protocol will allow access to a notional RDF graph. This may in
practice be the virtual graph which would follow from some form of
inference from a stored graph. This does not affect the data access
protocol, but may affect the description of the data access service. For
example, if OWL DL semantics are supported by a service, that may be
evident in the description of the service or the virtual graph which is
queried, but it will not affect the protocol designed under this
charter.
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#rdfs-owl-queries


Hmm... I see a problem with the present wording:

"It should be possible for knowledge encoded in other semantic
languages—for example: RDFS, OWL, and SWRL—to affect the results of
queries executed against RDF graphs."

The affect is on the queried graph more than on the results. So...
how about...

"The protocol should allow construction of notional RDF
graphs inferred (e.g. using standardized semantics such
as RDFS, OWL or emerging technologies such as SWRL or N3
rules) so that queries may be posed against the inferred
knowledge base."


> Best,
> Kendall Clark
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 18:34:56 UTC