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

Re: REX evaluation

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:48:45 -0400
To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040609204845.GB23839@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:59:10AM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote:
> 
> Just thought it was worth evaluating a form of the XQuery syntax we're
> using at NI to query the knowledge encoded in OWL ontologies. I'll refer
> to the RDF version of the syntax as "RDF Extensions to XQuery", or REX.

Is there anything on the Web about REX so that some of us could
consider your evaluation critically? It's hard -- well, impossible,
really -- to know what to make of this w/out independent access to the
details.

Some questions:

> 4.2 Provenance
> UNKNOWN
> I don't understand this objective well enough to evaluate it.

Is this because "provenance" is overloaded or for other reasons?

> 4.4 User-Specifiable Serialization
> FULLY SUPPORTED
> One of the strengths of the language.

I don't understand this; can you say more about it?

> 4.5 Aggregate Query
> UNKNOWN
> I don't understand this objective well enough to evaluate it.

Well first, can I use REX to query multiple graphs in one query? If
yes, what are the semantics of that query? If you can't query multiple
graphs in one query, then I think it's not supported, right?

Thanks,
Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 16:50:42 GMT

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