AW: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

I second this proposal. However,
I would amend 2 by requiring to study how far one can get with the
solutions derived by the Xquery/XSLT WGs.


Raphael Volz

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: 
> [] Im Auftrag von Jim Hendler
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. November 2003 17:55
> An: Dan Brickley;
> Cc:
> Betreff: RDF query and Rules - my two cents
> Dan et al-
>   Been thinking hard about this - here's my two cents:
> 1 - I think there is a clear and present need in the RDF community 
> for a way to essentially request a set of triples from a remote store 
> -- essentially an RDF remote access API.   We are already seeing many 
> cases (including but not limited to RSS feeds) where the sharing is 
> very powerful, and if we could do that more geenrally, it would help 
> many projects.   As more RDF-based web portals grow, this ability 
> becomes more important -- for example, I have some US computer 
> scientists described on my web site in OWL, the AKT project in the UK 
> has many British computer scientists described in OWL.  We cannot, 
> hwoever, get information from each other's backend stores without 
> negotiating our own protocols - and this makes it hard to get N-way 
> agreement.
>   So this is an aspect of query which I will call "Remote Access" and 
> I think we are ready for a WG on this.  Note that this would probably 
> not be very exciting for logicians, DL fans, etc. because I would 
> expect this to be simply a triples-exchange-mechanism over HTTP, not 
> a real "query" langauge
> 2 - I think there is the possibility of creating a query group based 
> on your charter, it would still need the above to exist to work, but 
> would add some logical notions and possibly blur with rules.   I 
> think that holding a workshop or two to try to tease apart these 
> issues is needed - as evidenced by the discussion on this mailing 
> list.
> 3 - with due respect to the folks involved, I think the current Rules 
> charter is way too broad, and a WG started in that area would thrash 
> for a long time.  I think we need activity to determine how to limit 
> such a charter to something doable, or find a more viable "de facto" 
> standard to build from -- as far as I can see we dn't have a 
> consensus in that area -- I would hope EU/DARPA/NSF or others might 
> host a forum in which such a consensus could emerge - otherwise I 
> would think the group would be aiming for something so ambitious that 
> it might miss the short-term targets, without benefit of enough 
> maturation to meet the long-term needs.
> So I would propose:
> i. W3C charter a "RDF Web Remote Access" WG in the near future - 
> limited charter, short time-frame, get an API to rec.
> ii. W3C sponsor a workshop on "Rules and Queries" in early 01 to 
> explore the range of issues in these charters.  If there was 
> consensus that a single WG could do these together then that would be 
> a good possibility for a Wg to start in Fall.
> Note that RDF Core and OWL will need to stay together for about 6 
> months after PR to do debugging and maintenance, so that starting too 
> many WGs immediately is likely to cause a real strain on the limited 
> number of people we have.
> so - Remote access now; Rules/Query workshops and some start in that 
> space in the Fall, would be my proposal...
>   -JH
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 12:04:40 UTC