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

RE: RDF QLs within a larger language

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:33:55 -0700
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOGEOKEMAA.howardk@fatdog.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Seaborne, Andy
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:33 AM
> To: Eric Prud'hommeaux; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RDF QLs within a larger language

> -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <>
> > Date: 28 June 2004 08:10
> >
> > Howard's XSRQL [1] and TimBL's N3QL [2] are good examples of RDF
> > functions that fit into a larger QL. In the XSRQL case, it gives us
> > an opportunity to lean on some already specified and implemented
> > functionality in XQuery that is likely to get very wide
> > deployment. I'm curious about how much re-use we get, Howard.
> >
> > N3QL constrains itself to be a subset of the N3 syntax which can be
> > used for query. This is especially usful if N3 is later adopted as a
> > rules language because we would get to take advantage of the fact that
> > query goals and rule goals are very similar, both in syntax and in
> > semantics. Once we've defined a language that produces some sort of
> > variable bindings, it's pretty easy to define how to use those
> > bindings to construct new graphs.
> >
> > Anybody interested in exploring this with me?
>
> Yes - for two readings of "this"

  [ snip ... ]

> Binding "this" to a more general "embed DAWG-QL query inside
> A.N.Other QL",
> especially Xquery/DAWG-QL.
>
> One approach I have not seen is embedding an RDF query language as a whole
> inside Xquery; rather that just Xquery FA's to access single triple
> patterns, have Xquery to graph patterns (and constraints?) which is
> effectively interfacing to the result set and sees doable if the
> result set
> is in XML.
>
> This would give the power to Xquery to produce XML, XHTML and other syntax
> result forms yet does not make the DAWG issue an either/or.  It
> also allows
> a separation with the Xquery-DAWG/QL interface being a remote access (c.f.
> log:semantics).

Ah, this is what you mentioned to me in email, Andy. I didn't understand the
point at the time.

I'm not quite sure how this would be done (have to mull on it), but it's
certainly a plus to be able to generate (and then be able to further
manipulate w/in the same environment if you want) XML in whatever flavour,
including RDF/XML.

I don't understand tho what you mean by "yet does not make the DAWG issue an
either/or". What DAWG issue are you talking about?

Howard


> 	Andy
>
> >
> > [1] http://www.fatdog.com/xsrql.html#Examples
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/N3QL
> > --
> > -eric
> >
> > office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
> >                         Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
> >                         5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
> >                         JAPAN
> >         +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
> > cell:   +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia)
> >
> > (eric@w3.org)
> > Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> > email address distribution.
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 13:33:03 GMT

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