Re: AW: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

We at NI would also like to look deeper at the query stuff being 
considered in light of the XQuery work (as many of you know, we have 
started down that path already).   We also are interested in the rules 
initiatives, but would see these as two different topics.


On Nov 11, 2003, at 5:04 PM, Raphael Volz wrote:

> 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:
>> [] 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 12:48:58 UTC