- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:07:23 -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 13:49, Janne Saarela wrote: > >>Very good starting point. Formally may I suggest > >>we could use logic programming notation such > >> > >>(X, FN:name, "John Smith") > > > > > > Umm... why? Is that a notation we expect our audience to > > use when making their feature requests? > > I think logic programming serves at this point as a nice > abstract syntax for which we can find the concrete syntax > later. I don't expect feature request arise in this format > but I could imagine that within this WG we find this notation > easy to formalize the feature. Is this a good assumption? It doesn't appeal to me, at this point. I expect to formalize features in a design document, not in a use cases and requirements document. > >>The evaluation result would then be either bindings > >>for X or if closure is a requirement, we would return > >>all triples with X bound to a different value. > >> > >>I would like to see closure implemented with the query > >>language in order to enable refined queries over > >>the result graph. > > > > > > Can you motivate this feature with a use case? i.e. > > a plausible story from real life? > > == Task & Roles > > A client software wishes to connect to server software > to find out if it could find an object whose property > matches certain value. > > == Value & Why > > If the query result is a graph, the client can cache > the query result and run another query over the query > result. This is far more efficient than repeating the > query over to the server again with more criteria set. > > == Description > > Looking for content which is written in French > (X, dc:language, "fr") and returning all known > properties for X should be a complete graph with > (X, P1, V1), (X, P2, V2), ... , (X, Pn, Vn) for > which another query can be run upon with e.g. > additional constraint (X, dc:creator, "John Smith") set. This is getting there, but it's still too abstract for me... too many greek letters: "a client software", "a server", "the query", "a graph", "known properties", X, P1, P2, V1, V2, ... The french language is a nice, concrete topic that I'd expect our audience to be familiar with. dc:language is a little geeky, but certainly something we can expect our readers to learn with a couple paragraphs of explanation. Could you please pick one particular scenario built out of more concrete things like the french language, the concept of "composer" and such? This http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheFairyTale pattern seems particularly relevant to our task... "Structure the use case description as a fairly tale with an initiating event (Once upon a time there was an actor who wanted….), a sequence of events describing the interaction of the actors with the story (and then the big bad actor…) that describes how the goal is reached ( and they all lived happily ever after). " -- 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 15:06:19 UTC