RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

It's getting late here, but I'll dump my case
I've done a test with the given kb
  :a :b :c.
  :d :e :f.

and a test with the given kb
  :a :b :c.

and a test with the given kb.
  :d :e :f.

and a test with the given kb which is empty

That are all RDF graphs.

The query is implemented with the --filter
option of cwm and euler, which is an RDF formula
  {:a :b :c} => {:yes :for <>}.
  {:d :e :f} => {:yes :for <>}.
but haven't yet thought about other designs...

The answer is definitely an RDF graph like
  :yes     :for <testC.n3> .
(where testC.n3 is actually that filter file)
or the empty graph for the fourth test.

I fail to see the harm in doing
"encoding the answer within the query"...
Isn't "select ... where ..." an encoding?


-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




"Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
09/06/2004 01:26

 
        To:     Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
        cc:     "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information


I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate. Clearly
encoding the answer within the query doesn't really show anything; in
this case you're not really using RDF for answering the query at all.

Perhaps you could explain your intent more clearly. What is the
"knowledgebase" in the first place, what bits of it are RDF and what
bits are "additional semantic information", what is the human-language
query you want to answer, and what is your approach for answering that
query?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:19 PM
> To: Rob Shearer
> Cc: Dan Connolly; Jim Hendler; Kendall Clark; RDF Data Access 
> Working Group; public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information
> 
> Rob, 
> 
> Having some given RDF graph either containing
> the triple :a :b :c. or the triple :d :e :f.
> and using for instance cwm or euler --filter f
> where f is
> 
> {:a :b :c} => {:yes :for <>}.
> {:d :e :f} => {:yes :for <>}.
> 
> can easily return either the empty answer
> 
> or the answer
>     :yes     :for <testC.n3> .
> 
> (and I have been using 2 types of running code)
> 
> -- 
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
> Sent by: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> 09/06/2004 00:39
> 
> 
>         To:     "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Kendall 
> Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
>         cc:     "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "RDF Data 
> Access Working Group" 
> <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>         Subject:        RE: Objective 4.6 -- additional 
> semantic information
> 
> 
> 
> > "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."
> 
> I have a problem with that because it seems to imply that all knowlege
> *about* an RDF graph can be encoded *within* an RDF graph, and that's
> clearly not the case. (The charter similar slants things this way as
> well, which I think is a mistake.) It's perfectly sensible to 
> know, for
> example, that an RDF graph must contain at least one of two possible
> triples, but not which one. Are you allowed to use that information to
> help answer queries about the graph? I think it would be a 
> major mistake
> to make the use of such information a violation of the spec.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 19:54:08 UTC