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

Re: RDQL functionality vs. DAWG requirements

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:57:13 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040602145712.GE7484@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 02:11:56 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> The N3/cwm way would be predicates that evaluate the subject to give the
> object.  That is, pushing the work to the RDF graph or havign the QL know
> certain predicates.  Jos's example of the "find all the places with 50miles
> of somewhere" did this.  I would say that it was not human-friendly syntax
> though.

And its like SeRQL's "direct subclass" vritual triples. I also dislike it
for human, unfreidnliness though.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:57:14 GMT

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