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

Re: thoughts and some refs about AFS-2 UC

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:31:16 +0200
Message-Id: <496625F1-7BDB-11D8-B928-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "ext Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On Mar 19, 2004, at 16:37, ext Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: Alberto Reggiori <>
>> Date: 19 March 2004 08:58
>> On Mar 19, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2004, at 18:30, ext Alberto Reggiori wrote:
>>>> ... To tackle the provenance aspect/problem instead, I would expect
>>>> such systems to explicitly flag/annotate their CBDs with some
>>>> authoritative information about the source providing the the answer.
>>>> Even so, it is not clear to me how today solutions like
>>>> Joseki/URIQA solves this problem though.
>>>> Any thoughts about this?
>>> Jeremy Carroll, Chris Bizer, Pat Hayes, and I have been working on an
>>> approach to address such issues -- concerning named graphs,
>>> signatures, and authentication. We are working to get a paper
>>> completed.
>> thanks!
>>> To properly address such concerns, you have to (in our opinion) add a
>>> little bit of extra machinery and augment the RDF MT -- so given the
>>> presumption that what the DAWG comes up with should sync with the
>>> latest RDF/OWL specs, that could put it out of scope.
>> well - not sure - perhaps need to discuss this once we have got a
>> clearer picture of the story here - I would rather need instead such a
>> feature :-)
>> provenance/attributions seem to be a key aspect to consider for the
>> success of the whole RDF and associated query languages stuff - 
>> anybody
>> else agree on this?
> I agree that in the overall swemantci web architecture
> provenance/attributions are going to be important and that it is very
> significant for query in the long run.  I don't think that means 
> we/DAWG
> must address it in order to get a rec done that helps many people and
> systems.

I also have considered this to be ultimately out of scope, even if 

> I think that is huge benefit in a "simple" rec that helps toolkit
> builderd provide the same capabilities (they can confidently invest 
> time in
> building a quality implementation); it helps application writers be 
> able to
> access different sources without needing to adapt their applications 
> to the
> details of a particular source, and it helps end users by allowing 
> them to
> use their apps with many data sources.

It will be good, though, to keep this in mind so that whatever we
come up with "anticipates" such applications and facilitates extending
tools/systems applying the DAWG recommendations without major angst.

Not that we should put any significant time towards this, though.

I guess we could have a classification of issues/use cases which are
out of scope but "near by" and hence not be completely 

Inference/reasoning capabilities of knowledge stores seems like another
such "near by" issue, where we may not address it normatively, but we
may need to provide some discussion and possibly some non-normative


> 	Andy
>> Alberto


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 03:31:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC