- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:15:50 +0300
- To: <otto@math.fu-berlin.de>
- Cc: <eric@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Karsten Otto [mailto:otto@math.fu-berlin.de] > Sent: 07 October, 2004 15:22 > To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere) > Cc: eric@w3.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Re: Revised draft of CBD > > > Hello, > > Congratulations on the revised CBD document[1]. I find it > very helpful to > put CBDs in the right light, in particular the sections on application > issues. I'm also glad to have to original CBD back :-) Me too ;-) > Reading through the section on alternative forms reminded me of a > point raised by Eric Prud'hommeaux [2] about "arcs-in" knowledge. > The Symmetric CBD is a partial solution to this issue, but not in > cases where no symmetric properies exist. As a practical example, > during graph inspection I sometimes find myself in need to ask the > question "tell me *who uses* this resource". > > While this departs from the original CBD question of "tell me > about this > resource", I believe it to be a common enough case to deserve its own > "optimal alternative form". This Concise Bounded Usage > Description (CBUD) > can easily be dervied from the original CBD definition by exchanging > "subject" and "object", plus a minor modification regarding > reifications: > > [snip] I haven't had time to fully digest this yet as I've been bogged down with some other stuff, but will get to it soon. Patrick
Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 07:17:42 UTC