[Fwd: Re: Query Language Issues]

From: Richard Fikes (fikes@ksl.stanford.edu)
Date: 11/06/01

I think that Pat inadvertently sent his reply to the wrong distribution
list.  I am forwarding it to the Joint Committee myself, because I am
about to send a reply to Pat's message.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Query Language Issues
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:14:59 -0600
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: Richard Fikes <fikes@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
References: <3BE83A3C.BC005E39@ksl.stanford.edu>

>I said last week that I would send out a message articulating the issues
>we have been discussing regarding query-answering.  This is that
>message.  My apologies for not sending the message out sooner.  I am
>back at home (and my father is recuperating well from his surgery), but
>I did not have time to put this together sooner.
>As per my earlier messages, my student Yulin Li has been significant
>contributions to the material in this message.
>This message is to articulate issues involved in specifying and
>formalizing the information content of a "query-answering discourse"
>between two agents in which one agent seeks information from a second
>agent by sending a "query" to the second agent.
>I will refer to the agent sending the query as the "client" and the
>agent receiving the query as the "server".  I will refer to the response
>sent by the server to the client as a "query result" and will assume
>that a query result may contain one or more "query answers".
>Knowledge Base
>I assume a query is posed with respect to a knowledge base that is a
>DAML+OIL representation of a logical theory.  Thus, a query needs to
>include a reference to a DAML+OIL knowledge base.  I will refer to that
>knowledge base as the "query KB".
>Query Premise
>We have discussed enabling a query to include a premise that is to be
>added to the query KB so that the query is being asked of the query KB
>unioned with the premise.  A premise essentially facilitates queries of
>the form if-then while still remaining within the expressiveness of
>ISSUE: Do we want to enable the inclusion of a premise in a query, and
>if so what is the form of a premise?  I recommend that we do allow
>premises and that they be an arbitrary DAML+OIL knowledge base.

I can't quite see the point of this. Presumably, this amounts to 
having the query KB be the conjunction of the original query KB and 
the premis, is that the idea? But we can do this simply by including 
a reference to the original query KB into the premis, then using the 
premis alone as the query KB. In the DAML+OIL world, any ontology can 
include any other ontology, simply by referring to it, so there is no 
need to invoke any special provision for conjoining two of them in a 
special way.

>Query Pattern
>I assume a query contains a "query pattern" that specifies relationships
>among unknown sets of objects in a domain of discourse.  Each unknown
>object is represented in the query pattern by a "query variable".
>Answering a query with query variables x1,,xn involves identifying
>tuples of object constants

Why only constants?

>such that for any such tuple  <c1,,cn>, if
>ci is substituted for xi in the query pattern for i=1,,n, then the
>resulting "query pattern instance" specifies a sentence that is entailed
>by the query KB.

That is the same as saying that the query is entailed by the KB, if 
those are existential variables. (The logic is already doing this for 
you, you don't need to do it all again :-)

>For each such ci, the pair [xi, ci] is called a "query
>variable binding" for the corresponding query variable xi.  Each set of
>query variable bindings specifies a candidate answer to the query.
>ISSUE: What is the expressive power of the query pattern language?  For
>example, we might decide that a query pattern instance can specify a
>sentence that is a disjunction of a conjunction of RDF statements or is
>a negation of a conjunction of RDF sentences, or .  My recommendation
>is that we define the query pattern language so that a query pattern
>instance specifies a conjunction of sentences each of which is
>representable in DAML+OIL (i.e., a conjunction of RDF statements).
>Answer Mapping Function
>A query needs to specify a mapping of query variable bindings into query

?? What is a query answer, exactly? (I thought that bindings to query 
variables *were* query answers (??))

>In particular, a query answer may include or make use of
>bindings to only a subset of the query variables.
>ISSUE:  What is the nature of the answer mapping function language?  For
>example, a query answer might be allowed to be any s-expression

Whoa! How did Sexpressions get in there? Aren't we talking about DAML ??

>atomic elements are bindings to specified variables.  (E.g., map the
>bindings [x1, c1], [x2,c2], [x3,c3], and [x4,c4] to the s-expression
>"(c1 (c2 c3) c4)".)  I think all that matters for our formalization and
>core design work is that a query answer may make use of the bindings to
>only a subset of the query variables.  So, my recommendation is that for
>now we consider a query answer to consist of a set of bindings for a
>subset of the query variables

That would be my natural inclination also, but I think it needs to be 
extended some. For example, we might want to distinguish between the 
case where the query is said to be OK but no bindings are provided, 
from the case where the query is simply answered with 'no' or 'fail' 
or whatever. Ian wants to distinguish the 'don't know' (ie unprovable 
from KB) answer case from the 'no' (ie, contradictory with the KB) 
cases. So in general there might be other information in an answer 
than just the bindings alone.

>, and that the query specifies which query
>variables are in that subset.  I will make that assumption in the
>remainder of this document.

Wait. The *query* specifies which query variables are in the set? So 
there could be query variables which are not being, as it were, 
queried? (Then why did you call them query variables?)

>ISSUE:  What constants can be in query answer bindings?  In particular,
>can a query variable be bound in a query answer to an anonymous node in
>the RDF graph?

1. No.
2. But in any case, an anonymous node is not a constant, so the 
question doesn't even arise.

HOWEVER, what this does raise as an issue is, is such a binding 
considered to be to a *node* or to the label on the node? Its not 
easy to see how to transfer a node as a binding, but maybe we need to 
take that idea more seriously (?)

>  If so, what is the form and semantics of that binding?
>Also, can a query variable be bound in a query answer to an object that
>is entailed in the knowledge base (e.g., by a cardinality constraint)
>but whose identity is not known by the server?  If so, what is the form
>and semantics of that binding?

In general, *existential* variables in the antecedent (the query KB) 
should never be passed out as bindings, since they have no meaning 
outside their scope. So the issue here seems to me to be, how to 
respond to a query in a way that indicates that a binding to query 
variable exists, without passing the binding itself. That is what 
that idea of having a <blank> binding was intended to do, of course.

>Uniqueness of Answers
>In general, a query result may contain multiple query answers.
>ISSUE: What guarantees do we want to make about the distinctiveness of
>multiple query answers in a query result?  We may want to guarantee that
>no two answers consist of identical sets of bindings.

Why would we want to do that? This might be useful information, eg if 
one queries
[?x ?y](exists (?z)(and (P ?x ?z)(P ?z ?y)))

(Sorry about the KIF; query variables in brackets)

then getting back two copies of the binding might allow you to infer 
(if the KB is closed) that there are precisely two ?z's involved. (If 
P is parent-of, this detects  a certain family arrangement which is 
universally frowned upon, for example.)

>  That would say
>that if A1 and A2 are query answers in a query result, then there exists
>a query variable xi for which the binding for xi in A1 is not the same
>constant as the binding for xi in A2.  A more difficult guarantee would
>be that no two answers consist of equal sets of bindings.  That would
>say that if A1 and A2 are query answers in a query result, then there
>exists a query variable xi for which the binding for xi in A1 is not
>equal to (i.e., does not denote the same object as) the binding for xi
>in A2.  My recommendation is that we guarantee there are no identical
>sets of bindings

I disagree. This is both needless, and onerous for the implementer.

>and that we enable a query to include an indicator as
>to whether equal sets of bindings are acceptable.

Again, I disagree. First, who is responsible for knowing that two 
things are equal? The KB may not have the resources to be able to 
prove this, but the querying engine might. But in any case, what is 
the utility? We can allow people to include statements of equality in 
the query if this issue bothers them.

>Number of Answers
>I assume our query language needs to enable a query to specify what is
>being asked for and our query result language needs to enable a query
>result to contain the information requested in a query.

You havn't said what this means, though. What IS the information 
requested in a query? (Not just a debating point, this seems like a 
central issue that we need to get clear, as many other things would 
then be also clarified, I think.)

>specification in a query would include how many query answers are being
>requested and what information is being requested about how many query
>answers there are.  Also, the query result language needs to enable
>including in a query result the information requested about how many
>query answers there are.
>ISSUE: Whether and how to include in a query the number of query answers
>being requested.  For example, we might enable a query to include a "#
>answers requested" that could be either a non-negative integer, the
>constant "All", or the constant "Enumerator".  If the number of answers
>requested is an integer n, the query is a request for as many query
>answers as the server can deduce up to n.  If the number of answers
>requested is "All", the request is for as many query answers as the
>server can deduce.  If the number of answers requested is "Enumerator",
>the request is for a process handle (continuation) that can be sent back
>to the server in a subsequent message to request that the server produce
>a "batch" of k query answers.  Some convention is needed for the case
>where the number of answers requested is "All" and the server can deduce
>an infinite number of answers.  Perhaps the convention would be that the
>server returns a process handle in that case.
>ISSUE: Whether and how to include in a query what information is being
>requested about how many query answers there are and in a query result
>the information requested.  For example, we might enable a query to
>include a request for information as to how many query answers there are
>("# answers?") and for a query result to include a specification of how
>many query answers are entailed ("# answers entailed") in the form of an
>ordered paired denoting a closed interval.  For example, a result
>containing the ordered pair [4,0-0] as the "# answers entailed" means
>that the server has determined that there are at least 4 answers to the
>query.  (I am using "0-0" here to stand for the "infinity" symbol.)
>Note that a value of [0,0-0] for "# answers entailed" is always true.
>When a query includes a request of "# answers", the server is being
>asked to deduce whatever it can about how many answers there are.   Note
>that a query can specify that "# answers requested" is zero so that the
>only information being requested is the number of answers.  Also, note
>that a query result could contain a value for "# answers" even when that
>information was not requested in the query.

This all seems rather like overkill. Do we really want to get into 
infinite ordinals?

Why not have the following distinctions:
query forms:
1.  one answer (ie first one found)/
2. (up to) N answers/
3. all answers.
1. an answer or 'not provable'/
2. list of M answers, for some M<=N; if M<N then this means these are 
all the answers/
3. some list of answers.
Issues: (1) what if there are infinitely many answers? Should we 
provide some way to indicate this even though not all the bindings 
can be provided?
(2) what about time? For example, it might be useful to get the first 
answer when it is available, even if more have been requested. Which 
suggests another dimension, viz. do you want the answers all at once 
when the entire list is done, or each one when it is fresh?

If we think about the query/answer business as a process, then maybe 
we could specify the various query options in the form of process 
descriptions of some kind. For example (making up the syntax here as 
I go along), we might specify 'all answers' as:
(fetch answer) repeat.
where an exception of the form 'no more' indicates that you have them 
all. Up to N would be
set n=0; (fetch answer; n=n+1) repeat until n=N

This could be a kind of API protocol between the querying and replying

>Justification For Answers
>Under the assumption that our query language needs to enable a query to
>specify what is being asked for and our query result language needs to
>enable a query result to contain the information requested in a query,
>the query language needs to enable inclusion in a query a request for a
>justification for each query answer and the query result language needs
>to enable inclusion of such justifications in a query result.

I don't see how this follows.  Again, I think we need to get clearer 
on what exactly counts as the information requested. If I hold up a 
query then I am asking the KB to prove it for me. What do I want 
back: the fact that it has been proved, some of the bindings in the 
proof, the expressions used as assumptions in the proof, the entire 
proof itself, all the proofs, or what? The last is probably the most 
general form, but it would be overkill for many querying 
applications. Still, it might be worth thinking of 'information 
requested' as being ultimately the entire set of proofs, and then 
defining various kinds of 'pruning' or simplification of this. That 
would certainly cover the variable-bindings, for example, and it 
might also cover justifications. (BTW, what is a justification, 

>ISSUE: Whether and how to include provisions for justifications to be
>requested in a query and be included in a query result.  What kind of
>justification language(s) do we include in our query results language?

I really would rather not keep inventing new languages for all this 
stuff. We really don't need to.

>Knowledge Base Structure Queries
>There seems to be a clear need to ask queries about the knowledge base
>itself as an artifact.  The most compelling example involves determining
>the "direct" subclasses of a class or subproperties of a property.
>ISSUE:  Whether and how to include such queries in our query language
>and query results language.  The primary issue seems to be to what
>extent we allow intermingling of "structural queries" with "entailment
>queries".  That is, we probably don't want to allow a request for direct
>subclasses to appear anywhere in a query pattern that an RDF statement
>(with variables) could appear.

Well, it might be OK as long as it was clearly distinguishable as 
being about the KB rather than entailed by it.

Hmmm. I need to think about this a bit more.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST