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

Re: RDQL functionality vs. DAWG requirements

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:15:46 -0500
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-id: <1086106546.6686.29.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 11:01, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:23:51 +0900, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > rdql- : 4.2 Provenance
> 
> True, but several (3+) of the implementations have added...

That's very interesting/relevant; i.e. it is evidence in
support of 4.2 Provenance.

As I mentioned in the teleconference, in cases where
we have an objective or requirement that's not met
by one of these designs, I'm interested to know if
the user (or implementor community) is satisfied
with that or if they are agitating to change it.

>  a 4th member to
> the pattern, eg:
> 
>   SELECT ?vcard, ?source
>   WHERE (?vcard vcard:FN "John Smith" ?source)
> 
> will tell you the "source" of the statement.
> 
> - Steve
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 12:18:40 GMT

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