- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:07:10 +0200
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "DAWG public list" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sep 30, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > Member submission from Nokia (Patrick Stickler) that is relevant to > discussions about DESCRIBE, bNodes in CONSTRUCT and possibly to > handling > containers and collections. > > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/ yes nice Patrick put his CBD work available as W3C Note > > > Notes: > * requires IFP processing in the server even though IFBD could be harder than simple bNodes-closure, due it requires RDF-Schema / OWL information handy (i.e. owl:InverseFunctionalProperty definitions) when carrying out the CBD of a resource - a bit of a requirement, due that most RDF data and schema (their definitions) still live separately. Unless of course a service, software, decides to hardcode some well know IFPs like foaf:mbox, foaf:homepage and so on. Anyway, such issues should not affect DAWG definition of DESCRIBE, if we pretend it to return an implementation (protocol?) specific sub-graph containing information about the resource being described I.e. the same DESCRIBE request might return different results from different services. > * includes the reification of any included statements return all statement reifications might also be painful...perhaps should that be optional or negotiable? Alberto
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 18:07:15 UTC