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

Re: Objective 4.6 -- additional semantic information

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>
Message-ID: <20040609022250.GC15969@monkeyfist.com>

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.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 22:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC