- From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:04:36 +0100
- To: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
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. Cheers, Raphael Volz > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Jim Hendler > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. November 2003 17:55 > An: Dan Brickley; www-rdf-rules@w3.org > Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > 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 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/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