- From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:40:43 -0700
- To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>, <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> I think we're using "RDF" to refer to different things here. > I recognize that provenance can be very useful in many RDF applications, > but I don't see provenence within the RDF spec. If it is actually > realized as triples (and there are ways to do that with provenance > information), then it's RDF, but if it's meta-information sitting > outside the RDF data model then I think it's somewhat out of scope. This is a very interesting thought, and one I've been having myself the past day or two, tho on the obverse side of the coin. Just because something sits outside the purview of a particular data model doesn't mean (imo) it should be considered as lying outside the scope of reference for a query language that queries that data model. Given my usual experiential frame of reference (XQuery, no surprise), there were things that the XQuery Founding Fathers and Mothers included in the data model for XQuery that extended beyond the data model for XML, altho XQuery's main purpose was arguably simply to query XML. They decided they needed them (primarily PostSchemaValidationInfoset information and the concept of multiple doc fragments) however, and that was that. In short, there's precedent for devising a data model for an RDF query language that works with constructs that aren't included in the data model of RDF itself. Howard > I'm glad we've finally gotten down the list to talk about some of these > objectives that have never really been addressed. >
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 23:40:12 UTC