W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > October 2004

RE: FROM keyword unnecessary?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:29:32 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396BEB@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>

Hi Phil,

Thank you very much for the observation.  Keep them coming.

At the moment, DAWG is only just on the point of having a protocol
specification so the relationship between the various elements of
the working group's outputs have yet to be worked out.  It is
certainly true that target identification is a necessary protocol
feature and that the API does also provide a way to identify the

There seems no necessity for FROM but it can be convenient.  There
are other local use cases such as scripts - SPARQL is not just a
query language embedded in programs - but the API case can be
expected to be quite common.

	on behalf of DAWG

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Phil Dawes <>
> Date: 26 September 2004 15:43
> Hi Andy, Hi Dawg comments
> I'm struggling to see the value of having the 'FROM' functionality in
> the query language, even in the local case.
> Andy Seaborne writes: (in the Named Containers post)
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > ==== FROM
>  >
>  > This is as much about "protocol" as query but its needed for the
>  local > query case where there isn't a protocol layer."
>  >
> In the local case I would consider the protocol layer to be the
> programming API, and the FROM functionality fits equally nicely in
> this layer as it does for the remote protocol.
> Moreover, 'FROM' buys little in terms of interoperablitiy in the local
> case, since the client still has to use a seperate api to stage the
> RDF store(s) and actually issue the query.
> (all IMHO!)
> Cheers,
> Phil
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 15:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:05 UTC