- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:53:38 +0900
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:08:35PM -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote: > > > I must admit that upon re-reading the UC&R doc I am a bit surprised that > > disjunction has fallen off the radar. I certainly think users like being > > able to form arbitrary boolean constructions. > > FWIW, I was just thinking this today! Along the lines, "don't we need > disjunction as an explicit requirement?" I don't know how or why > disjunction use cases fell out of the doc; maybe this is one of those > many mistakes I've made, but if so, it was totally unwitting. > > In other words, I think that disjunction should be an explicit > requirement about disjunction, and I would be happy to help someone > craft a use case that motivates it. > > > actually getting the benefit of the new system. If features like > > disjunction are so rarely useful, then I fear a lot of us have wasted a > > lot of time defining whole new languages like OWL and SWRL for > > expressing things that are even more esoteric! > > I don't think that's the case at all -- rather, I think that > disjunction just fell off the map. Let's get it back on. [1] finds an Annotea use case motivated by eliminating 3 extra queries (in fact, why I put disjunction into Algae). I provided Algae syntax and Alberto provided RDQL syntax. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/thread.html#247 -- -eric office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 03:53:34 UTC