- From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:12:26 -0800
- To: "Saveen Reddy (Exchange)" <saveenr@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- CC: "DASL Working Group (E-mail)" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Hello all, We in the RDF Schema working group are also working with typing the nodes of query resources along similar lines... Our spec won't be public for a week or two (i don't think)...but I look forward to integrating the functionality between all of these, and I have been watching all of the great work going into DASL very closely. XML-Data does have some lovely data typing mechanisims that I thing would work quite nicely with DASL and WEBDAV, for searching and in general overall. Ideally, these different specifications could be fully interoperable with each other, providing a standardized universal searching and querying mechanism for the whole web -- and all over HTTP. Beautiful. keep up the good work, and consider me a resource if you have any questions about the RDF schema spec when it arrives. Thanks, Lisa Rein W3C RDF Schema Working Group http://www.finetuning.com Saveen Reddy (Exchange) wrote: > > A few comments on your proposal, Jim ... > > Schema Discovery: > > The text describes a property for discovering which operators are supported. > There's a particular case in which I'm interested here. Suppose a server > offers searching on every resource -- making it easy for the client to > perform searches, by essentially making every URI available as a search > arbiter. In this case clients don't have to go find an arbiter -- they can > whatever URI is at hand. Would the queryschema property have to be defined > on each on of those resources? That seems like it be potentially a lot of > data stored on each resource just to support the search method. A PROPFIND > response that returned all properties might be very large when doen over a > container (even if depth=1). > > My feeling if such a property would work best only if there where a small > number of arbiters. One way to get around this and yet have discoverability > for all resources is to use the DASL: part of the OPTIONS response; it could > point the client to a resource that has the relevant queryschema property. > This would allow the information to exist for any resource without the > burden of actually defining the property on each searchable resource. > > Typing: > > We may want to leverage typing work that is already being done in XML. For > example, XML-Data defines a number of types and a mechanism for doing typing > in XML: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data/ > > Not all of this document deals with typing but there is a nice section on > it. These types are very oriented to the kinds of searches we are talking > about -- they basically match simple data types we are all familiar with. > > Thanks, > -Saveen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:02 PM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: proposed additions for discovery, sorting, and typed values > > DASL needs methods for sorting results and for schema discovery. It also > needs three valued logic and explicit typing. > > I have proposals for how to do all these. > > sorting is obvious, we add a sortby tag to the simplesearch. The only > tricky issues are 1) ensuring that one can also sort by 'relevance' as most > full text search engines do, and 2) allowing one to sort up or down, and 3) > finding a way to talk about differences in sorting order among various char > sets. My current proposal only addresses the first issue > > schema discovery means the ability to determine, for a given server, not > only what query syntax it supports, but what properties are searchable, > sortable, etc. I suggest the way to do this is to say that for each > searchable resource (an arbiter, as the current draft calls it), for each > query syntax it supports, it define a property whose value is the (query > syntax specific) schema. For the simple search, this would list the > searchable properties, available operators, etc. > > I have a detailed proposal for a set of tags to do this for simple search. > > We need data types so we can tell the difference between the string "7" and > the number 7. (Perhaps Alan B will send some email explaining more on this > point.) > > We need three valued logic so we can search for e.g. resources where some > properties might be undefined, and so we can handle things like divide by > zero with clarity. This means we also need constants for the true, false, > and unknown values. > > Rather than send my specific proposal as a huge email file I have placed it > on the Web, in both Word and plain text. The plain text was generated from > the Word and is not as nicely formatted but hopefuly conveys the ideas. > > Perhaps Saveen will be kind enough to pick up my Word file (that is, if he > agrees with my proposals) and merge them into the official draft proposal. > > I should admit that the current proposal shows the syntax but does not > explain or justify it very well. If you've worked with lots of search > systems than it may make sense, but otherwise I'll have to add more > language to it. > > I just wanted to get it out now so there could be some discussion on the > basic framework. If there is agreement then we can pursue the details of > syntax further. > > Please see > > http://www.parc.xerox.com/istl/members/jdavis/dasl-plus.doc > > http://www.parc.xerox.com/istl/members/jdavis/dasl-plus.txt > > Best regards > > Jim > > ------------------------------------ > http://www.parc.xerox.com/jdavis/ > 650-812-4301
Received on Monday, 16 March 1998 14:53:12 UTC