- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:21:15 +0100
- To: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: best-practice <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Sorry for delay in replying, while I think that we have agreement I am far from clear about what actual text is being proposed here. The comment to DAWG should be: - a few paragraphs, preferably two or three - making clear comments What we have at the moment is an e-mail thread which is a bit of tangle and it is not completely clear what it is saying. As far as I can tell, we (Gary, Phil and me) are in agreement, but without a message which is the draft comment, short and sweet, I can't really tell. So, I agree with: [[ I propose to submit the history of our conversation to the BP Working Group as the basis for our response to the DAWG. ]] but not with: [[ I suggest we forward the below on to the DAWG directly. ]] With a succinct message, we may find that there are still outstanding points of disagreement. Jeremy Phil Tetlow wrote: > > > > > 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 Tuesday, 26 October 2004 11:21:38 UTC