- From: Raphael Volz <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:52:58 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Gary Ng'" <Gary.Ng@networkinference.com>, "'Kendall Clark'" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, "'Rob Shearer'" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Dear Rob (and all other DA WG members), our comparison is neither intended to argue about what a RDF query language should be nor - by any means - intended to force you to take notice of our results. We posted it across the various RDF-related mailing lists, including the public RDF data access group list, to inform interested parties of our results and get feedback. The report is by no means complete with respect to all (publicly and privately) available query languages. Our criteria for inclusion of a given language was primarily based on whether or not we could get hold of good documentation and a freely available running prototype. This was necessary in order to formulate queries and to have a certain confidence in the Yes/No rating for certain language features. The document could be a useful input for the documents that the group has to produce. We will comment on the documents produced by the group at their respective public review periods as suggested by W3C process. Cheers Raphael (on behalf of Peter Haase, Andreas Eberhart and Jeen Broekstra)
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:53:53 UTC