W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: A Comparison of RDF Query Languages

From: <massimo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 06:40:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3101.81.211.181.181.1083321647.squirrel@81.211.181.181>
To: "Andreas Eberhart" <aeb@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Cc: daml-all@daml.org, ontoweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at, ontoweb-language-sig@cs.man.ac.uk, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com, seweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org, "Raphael Volz" <raphael@volz.info>, pha@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, jbroeks@cs.vu.nl

<quote>
Related to the recent work of the RDF Data Access Working Group [1], we
have compared six proposals for RDF query languages.
<snip/>
[2] http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/
</quote>

Andreas,
interesting work; to this regard, you might also want not to skip W3C's
Metalog (cf. http://www.w3.org/RDF/Metalog ).

On the criteria in [2], obviously one might add many different
others as well. Given DAWG's scope, DB-like ops like joins etc might
profitably be included in the list. It would be also nice to express
those use cases in terms of abstract properties, rather than single
use cases: this will help better shaping the requirements document,
keeping a high level of abstraction and generality.

Bests,
-M
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 06:40:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT