- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:21:24 +0000
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
I'm obviously interested in any responses to this in case my assumption of a big 'no' turns out to be incorrect (I doubt it). One of the things that is on my perma To Do List is to write something (probably a blog post) that sets out the bits of POWDER that I think are worth keeping or, at least, the ideas that are worth still referring to. The most usual route by which people come across it is the use of wdrs:describedby and its equivalent IANA registered @rel link type (and even that I screwed up and had to add an errata [1]). The bit that I *do* think is worth hanging on to is the grouping mechanism [2]. Maybe not exactly as written but the basic method of defining a set of resources is semantically rigorous, NP-Complete, and the general problem comes up a lot. For example, in the Permissions & Obligations Expression WG [3], there are often discussions about how to avoid having to assert individual links between resources and the licence terms that apply to them or, conversely, enumerating al the resources that a particular odrl:Policy applies to. This is exactly the kind of thing that POWDER was designed to handle. POWDER was written at a time when RDF/XML was still the preferred method of expressing semantics and the notion of expressing something simply in XML that would then be transformed into something with all the semantic bells and whistles, using an XSLT that was defined at XML Schema level, wasn't seen as crazy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and all that. I remember one occasion when DanBri, in conversation with Brain McBride, summed up what POWDER was: "it solves aboutEachPrefix." Well, it offered *a solution.* I wouldn't propose that solution now (despite spending many years on it), but I would say the approach to grouping is worth taking into account whenever a better method is proposed. Phil [1] https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata#describedby [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-grouping/ [3] https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/ On 10/01/2017 01:52, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > Hi, > > I'm poking around to find out if anyone is *using* POWDER - https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/ > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com > -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 10:21:40 UTC