- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:01:51 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 11:06 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:29:09AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Your example has two conflicting descriptions of
> > the dataset. Pick one, please.
> Perhaps i over-abbreviated. This particular query service has no
> innate data (unlike, say, a database of the CIA World Fact Book).
> There are also two rdf files, lies and truth, out there on the web.
OK, now I understand which one you meant, but
I think I've lost the point. Do you mean to argue
for or against some design?
> > > Thus, if the defualt database *may* be contiminated, you need to fall
> > > back to the more verbose form of provenance constraint:
> > > SELECT ?stuff
> > > FROM <truth.rdf>
> > > FROM NAMED <lies.rdf>
> > > WHERE { GRAPH <truth.rdf> { <TheMoon> <isMadeOf> ?stuff } }
Is that intended to be an argument against the rq23 1.367 design?
It seems like just a neutral fact, from where I sit. If
you're querying some service and you don't know what dataset(s)
it uses, life is hard. That's what SADDLE is/was all about. I hope
we get this round of specs done soon enough to get to that
part of the design space.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 16:01:55 UTC