- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:34:13 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: best-practice <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy,
Point taken. I was unsure if listing the full thread would added value for
the DAWG guys. Ill consolidate the text into a succinct format for further
discussion within our group.
Kind regards
Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.
com> To
Sent by: Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB
public-swbp-wg-re cc
quest@w3.org best-practice
<public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, schreiber
<schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
26/10/2004 07:21 Subject
Re: Response to DAWG on Best
Practice for Data Access
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 11:31:58 UTC