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

Re: Potential Requirement: Predicate support with boolean operators

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 17:29:29 -0500
To: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1083709769.458.978.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 15:41, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> I have been scanning the list archives wondering how much discussion has 
> occurred on having a requirement to support
> predicates with boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).
> 
> What I find is that there has been a few postings that talk about 
> Negation or Conjunction or Disjunction support as potential use cases or 
> requirements.
> 
> However, when I read the latest Use Cases and Requirements draft I do 
> not believe I see a requirement that focuses explicitly on
> supporting multiple predicates in the query syntax that can be combined 
> using boolean operators. Is this an explicit omission or
> has it just been missed?

I'm not sure. In the postings you have seen, is there a particular
phrasing of the requirement that appeals to you?

It's entirely possible that there is a requirement that the WG
would support but nobody has managed to write it down yet.

FYI, the implementations I am familiar with have limited support
for disjunction and negation: limited to comparing
datatype values.

Perhaps some of the implementors would like to relate
their experience?

>  If explicitly dropped as a requirement can 
> anyone explain the rationale for the decision. Thanks for your
> help.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 18:29:21 GMT

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