- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:22:50 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:35:22PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > 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!) I mean that I reject Rob's warrant for his claim. He says that, in order to avoid doing a query language for *every* layer of the layer cake above XML, we have to make an RDF query language in which "*any* extra knowledge which describes RDF graphs can play a role". So, in addition to begging the question by suggesting we've already agreed to that, which is precisely what we're trying to decide, he suggests what seems to me a real case of false dichotomy: either do *all* "semantic hinting here and now or make a query language for every layer. Usually people try to avoid starting down the slippery slope; sorry to be blunt, but in this case it seems like Rob is rushing headlong toward it. But maybe that gin and tonic I had at dinner was too big?! :> > It seems to me that this objective is just a restatement of this > bit from our charter: Well, please recall that I originally proposed 4.6, so I am inclined to support some version of it. > "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." Frankly, I'm not as concerned with wordsmithing this objective as others seem to be; what the requirements or objectives mean, ultimately, for non-WG implementors will be determined in the context of *all* of our other documents, which will include lots and lots of stuff about design, as well as some existing implementations. That being said, I could support your variant, given that it makes a principled distinction between RDFS/OWL and SWRL/N3. Best, Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 22:24:42 UTC