Response to DAWG on Best Practice for Data Access

Please find below the output from the discussion I have had with Gary NG
regarding the DAWG's request for Best Practice advice on Data Access.

I think that Gary, (Jeremy) and I may have managed to provide suitable
answer now. Hence, if nobody has any further comment, I suggest we forward
the below on to the DAWG directly.

I guess this is something that Guus might do on our collective behalf? - I
will happily collate further input.

Regards

Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
----- Forwarded by Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM on 22/10/2004 11:50 -----
                                                                           
             "Gary Ng"                                                     
             <Gary.Ng@networki                                             
             nference.com>                                              To 
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
             21/10/2004 11:38                                           cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: DAWG Action SWBP teleconference 
                                       - original mails from Gary NG       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




No further comment :) I second, Make it so.

Cheers,

G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Tetlow [mailto:philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2004 03:06
> To: Gary Ng
> Cc: Jeremy Carroll
> Subject: RE: DAWG Action SWBP teleconference - original mails from
Gary NG
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary
>
> I appreciate your input, you have filled in a number of gaps nicely. I
> think there is a consensus forming - I'm pleased.
>
> As for comment on point [2], I'm not sure I'm really qualified to
speak.
> Jeremy's mail appears to cover the required ground more than
adequately.
> Hence I have copied Jeremy on this mail and, if there are no further
> comments, I propose to submit the history of our conversation to the
BP
> Working Group as the basis for our response to the DAWG.
>
> Regards
>
> Phil Tetlow
> Senior Consultant
> IBM Business Consulting Services
> Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
>
>
>
>              "Gary Ng"
>              <Gary.Ng@networki
>              nference.com>
To
>                                        Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>              21/10/2004 02:32
cc
>
>
Subject
>                                        RE: DAWG Action SWBP
teleconference
>                                        - original mails from Gary NG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for the message again, see inline comments.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Tetlow [mailto:philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com]
> > Sent: 19 October 2004 02:49
> > To: Gary Ng
> > Subject: RE: DAWG Action SWBP teleconference - original mails from
> Gary NG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > I would appreciate your comments on my thoughts to date. Obviously I
> will
> > incorporate your views accordingly
> >
> > I have now had time to look at Gary NG's response
> >
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0049.html)
> to
> > the DAWG's request for feedback on RDF Data Access Use Cases and
> > Requirements and found it a measured and thoughtful consideration of
> the
> > issues currently being faced. Nevertheless my reading of Gary's
reply
> > suggests that a set of tabled responses still needs to be debated,
> even
> > though Gary more that adequately provides substantial, valuable
> material
> > towards this.
> >
> > For the purposes of reiteration, the DAWG have asked for specific BP
> > comment on:-
> >
> > 1.    XQuery, syntax and integration: We're chartered to "...
maximize
> W3C
> > technology re-use, while also taking account of differences between
> the
> > RDF
> > graph data model and the XQuery data model" and to allow "... for
RDF
> data
> > to be accessable within an XML Query context".
> > 2.    Rules, Additional Semantic Information
> >
> >       We have an objective
> >
> >       "It should be possible for knowledge encoded in other semantic
> >       languages-for example: RDFS, OWL, and SWRL-to affect the
results
> of
> >       queries executed against RDF graphs."
> >
> >       http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#d4.6
> >
> >       and in discussion of rules and query
> >       http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf2#qrdesigns
> >
> >       we noted a connection between rules and a CONSTRUCT
> >       mechanism found in various contemporary designs, including
> >       our current draft
> >
> >       http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#construct
> >       $Revision: 1.25 $ of $Date: 2004/08/16 12:23:00 $
> >
> >       Any rules/query integration experience to share? Thoughts
> >       on best practices for accessing RDF data, while rules
> >       work is still in the early stages of standardization?
> >
> > Gary further suggests comment of the following:
> >
> > 3. I also noticed that they would like to address "data source
> > identification" within the query language.
> >
> > In commenting on whether we - the SWBPWG - should, or be in a
position
> to,
> > provide comment on the above issues I have made specific reference
to
> our
> > charter and consider that there may well be some slight conflict
> involved.
> > Specifically we are tasked to 'to provide hands-on support for
> developers'
> > which implies advice on implementation issues - a level of agreement
> not
> > yet reached by the DAWG. Nevertheless the charter also states that
we
> may
> > well remark on 'engineering guidelines' by applying 'combining
> > experience'. For this reason, and given the level of confusion
> > currently apparent around
> > the choice of implementation route for Semantic Web Data Access, one
> might
> > suggest that our remit to comment using 'combined experience' should
> > prevail. For this reason there may well be some generalized, yet
well
> > established, Best Practice concepts that apply here and on which we
> might
> > all agree.
> >
> Yes. I agree on this approach. From the first paragraph of our
charter:
> "consensus-based guidance ... to facilitate Semantic Web deployment"
> would seem to be the choice of capacity in which the SWBPDWG shall
> respond. My view is that giving guidance on query design/scoping is in
> our scope towards indirectly facilitating Semantic Web deployment in
the
> long run.
>
> > Tabled Response 1 - On methods for exploiting metadata on the
Semantic
> Web
> > Although the Semantic Web has been designed to address a specific
set
> of
> > requirements around the storage and use of metadata, it must still
be
> > remembered that metadata is still only a specialization on the
generic
> > data
> > theme.
> >
> > As such, Semantic Web metadata may well be used for a wide spectrum
> > of uses in the future, some of which may not have yet been
envisioned
> yet
> > alone realized.
> >
> Agreed.
>
> > To narrow this potential range by recommending specific
> > closed implementation standards around data exploitation (querying,
> rules
> > etc.) must, hence, be viewed as contradictory to the objectives of
the
> > Semantic Web initiative. As such, the development of an abstract
> canonical
> > syntax, as currently advocated by [1], on top of which several
> concrete
> > syntaxes for Semantic Web metadata exploitation could be implemented
> is of
> > obvious merit. In establishing such a model a primary aim should be
> the
> > extensible accommodation of, translation between and possible
> combining of
> > valid concrete syntaxes (both present and future) around core data
> > embodiment and constraint concepts. This will then move the onus of
> > Working
> > Group responsibility away from implementation specifics towards
> > guardianship of data embodiment, rules application and mediation
> between
> > implementation mechanisms etc.
> >
> From other conversations I had, I thought this is already DAWG's
> philosophy. However, I cannot find similar wording in their charter.
It
> could be useful for them if BP WG also agrees this is the way forward.
> In any case it is a kind of endorsement and vote of confidence from
us.
>
> However, the above seem a little abstract and open to interpretation.
It
> may or may not imply some of their "out-of-scope" items (e.g. OWL
> semantics, Rules) should be brought back in for consideration,
wherever
> such item is deemed relevant to the openness/extensible-ness of the
> eventual query language.
>
> > Tabled Response 2 - On maximization of technology reuse
> > Reuse is a recognised and fundamental Best Practice concept that
> should be
> > promoted wherever possible. Nevertheless reuse should always be
> tempered
> > with a view towards relevance to targeted core concepts, the
specific
> use
> > advantages offered and potential for future extensibility and
further
> > reuse.
> >
> > If significant overlap exists with target canonical representations,
> > significant advantage is to be gained or non-overlapping features
can
> be
> > implemented without significant effort or investment, reuse should
> always
> > be the chosen route forward. By recommending reuse, however, this
> should
> > not imply that implementations that mature first are any better, or
> should
> > dominate over, those the take longer to reach mass take up. Nor
should
> it
> > imply that standards or commercial unification around a specific
> > implementation is correct or desired.
> >
> Interesting choice of words. I think it is interesting and important
to
> set the 'mood' towards openness and encourage 'let the best
> "implementation" wins' kind of thinking. By the above thus far you are
> suggesting that the DAWG group shall concentrate their effort on
> devising a sound, well justified and extensible abstract model, be
> mindful of other overlapping possibilities, provide guidelines on
> implementation and translation, and remove themselves from concrete
> model implementation details. Leaving the public to implement their
own
> concrete syntaxes based on the abstract. Eventually, the best will
> evolve and be the de facto standard. Am I correct?
>
> > Tabled Response 3 - On making trade-offs in accepting query
> requirements
> > that are practical and binding abstract syntax to a concrete syntax-
> as
> > outlined in [1]
> >
> > Although it is recognised that a pragmatic approach to
implementation
> is a
> > commendable goal, it is apparent that a number of potentially
> orthogonal
> > approaches to concrete syntax currently exist and the likelihood is
> that
> > this number will grow in the future. Attempting to compensate for
such
> > misalignments directly must surely be an overwhelming and torturous
> > endeavour best suited to either commercial competition of organic
> > acceptance over time through routes like open source. Whether the
DAWG
> > should be seen to side with particular concrete syntax at this
moment
> is
> > hence debatable from a Best Practices perspective.
> >
> Great, I think what I just said above is confirmed here.
>
> All these seem to address only point 1.  XQuery, syntax and
integration.
> And perhaps part of 3. data source identification. You got any views
on
> 2.?
>
> Regarding 2), Jeremy Caroll had a few comments slightly overlapping my
> own in that message [2].
>
> [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0097.html
>
>
> Cheers, very thoughtful views.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#concreteSyntax
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > Phil Tetlow
> > Senior Consultant
> > IBM Business Consulting Services
> > Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
> >
> >
> >
> >              "Gary Ng"
> >              <Gary.Ng@networki
> >              nference.com>
> To
> >                                        Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> >              14/10/2004 15:28
> cc
> >
> >
> Subject
> >                                        RE: DAWG Action SWBP
> teleconference
> >                                        - original mails from Gary NG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Phil, here it is.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Sep/0049.html
> >
> > I am happy to coordinate with you on this. From your comments from
on
> > the telecon I'd agree with you that we should separate out the
> internal
> > discussion in our respective organizations, from the objective of
the
> > task for the WG which is whether we want to comment as SWBPD or not,
> if
> > so, what.
> >
> > Feel free to send me your views and comments.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > Gary Ng, Ph.D.           <gary.ng@networkinference.com>
> > Network Inference Inc.
> > 5963 Carlsbad Airport Plaza, Suite 300
> > Carlsbad, CA 92008
> > Tel: +1 (760) 476 0650
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Phil Tetlow [mailto:philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: 14 October 2004 12:20
> > > To: Gary Ng
> > > Subject: DAWG Action SWBP teleconference - original mails from
Gary
> NG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > Further to this evening's SWBPWG teleconference I have picked up
an
> > action
> > > to review your recent comments to the SWBPWG on DAWG proceedings.
> > > Unfortunately my inbox has been swapped of late and,having checked
> my
> > mail
> > > achieves, I appear not to have kept a copy. Hence I would be very
> > grateful
> > > if you could re-send.
> > >
> > > Many thanks
> > >
> > > Phil Tetlow
> > > Senior Consultant
> > > IBM Business Consulting Services
> > > Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
>
>

Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 16:16:07 UTC