- From: Dirk Colaert <Dirk.Colaert@quadrat.be>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:21:46 +0200
- To: "'public-rdf-dawg@w3.org'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>This sounds like "best match", which would require some forumula >for ranking alternative results, which may be alot of work. > >I personally like this use case, and think it definitely reflects >real-world needs. I'm just wondering if it's (a) too big to take >on and (b) something that needs more research/exploration before >standardizing. I certainly agree that solving the query is a difficult task. But I guess this is outside the scope of the workgroup. The point is do we need a query language capable of: 1- giving constraints (no doubt I guess) 2- imposing a sort order on some criteria The difficulty is that that 'criteria' is not necessarily a data element in the rdf document but implied in the rules within the document (as you said: "best match"). The relevance of the Use Case is that it points clearly to that capability. It is up to the WG to decide whether or not we want the QL to have that functionality. My point is: The problem is very common so, if we can't express this problem with SQL, if we can't express the problem with xpath/opath (object oriented) then we should do it with the query language were are designing now. Otherwise we have to wait until yet another more high level language shows up. If we accept RDF as a means to store knowledge and meaning then an RDF query language should be able to handle something like 'relevance' and 'best fit' Right? Dirk ___________________________________ Dr. Dirk Colaert MD Production, Information Systems Architect Agfa HealthCare Informatics call +32 3 444 84 08 fax +32 3 444 84 01
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 07:15:44 UTC