- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:14:46 +0300
- To: "ext Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Apr 22, 2004, at 11:02, ext Phil Dawes wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > Patrick Stickler writes: >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2004, at 14:48, ext Phil Dawes wrote: >> >>> The main problem with Patrick's concise-bounded-description idea from >>> this respect is how to find references to a term. >>> > > Snip [...] > >> >> This has nothing to do with the definition of concise bounded >> descriptions >> (which simply define a particular kind of RDF sub-graph focused on a >> particular resource). >> >> URIQA does not attempt to provide a general query language/solution, >> but >> is expected to work in harmony with any number of general query >> solutions >> (such as is the focus of the RDF Data Access Working Group). >> >> Thus, there is no "problem" with not providing functionality that was >> never intended to be provided. > > Apologies if this wasn't clear, but my mail was intended to mean 'the > problem with using URIQA from the perspective of using it for > open-ended queries'. (hence the 'from this respect' bit) > > I didn't mean to imply that there was a problem with URIQA from the > perspective of its intended goals - sorry for that. > Fair enough. I expected as much, but wanted to make the clarification for the sake of those not familiar with URIQA... Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2004 05:20:33 UTC