- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:54:46 -0600
- To: Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:41, Janne Saarela wrote: [...] > The server has rooted 'music:composer' to 'dc:creator' > via (music:composer, rdfs:subPropertyOf, dc:creator). > > The client queries for > > (X, dc:creator', 'John Smith') > > and should be returned with composers that have name > 'John Smith'. Ah... now that has clear appeal. Meanwhile, we're treading on the boundaries of our charter, which says that the access mechanism is orthogonal to the inference capabilities of the service... "The protocol will allow access to a notional RDF graph. This may in practice be the virtual graph which would follow from some form of inference from a stored graph. This does not affect the data access protocol, but may affect the description of the data access service. For example, if OWL DL semantics are supported by a service, that may be evident in the description of the service or the virtual graph which is queried, but it will not affect the protocol" -- http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#rdfs-owl-queries So I'll be watching carefully to see how this use case turns into requirements on the data access technology, as opposed to requirements on an RDFS inference engine. If they get too intertwingled, we'll have to look at changing the charter. It can be done, but it involves talking with lots of people outside the WG. > The return vocabulary should by default > be that of the client (=dc) or by explicit request > something else (e.g. =music). > > Janne -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:53:42 UTC