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

Re: UPDATED: Precis of Design Evaluations

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:57:28 +0200
Message-Id: <87814140-C956-11D8-8D4E-0003939CA324@asemantics.com>
Cc: 'Asemantics Staff' <staff@asemantics.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com

Kendall thanks for collecting and reporting misc comments about  
evaluations - see our short comments below about RDQL

On Jun 28, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Kendall Clark wrote:
>
> Design Evaluations
> ------------------
>
> -RDQL-
>
> Alberto Reggiori follows up with useful info re: the utility
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/ 
> 0500.html
>
> -RDQL, the Asemantics Dialect-
>
> Evaluation by Alberto Reggiori, in response to Eric s eval of RDQL
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/ 
> 0502.html

we would rather change the text above and drop the 'Asemantics Dialect'  
phrasing and replacing it with a less stronger text like 'Asemantics  
implementation experience' or use a more generic piece of text. It is  
important to note that our work is based on RDQL, built on it and it is  
compatible with the original specification - we explicitly avoided the  
design of a new query language. And we rather tried to build (and  
promote) a simple basic common denominator between different RDF  
SQL-alike query languages in the past years. Many of the existing  
RDQL/SquishQL implementations like Jena, Inkling, RubyRDF, RDFdb,  
RDFStore, Sesame, PHP/RAP, 3Store, Rasqual and others have been a good  
example of this.

We think that the result in different RDQL implementations and  
extensions (such as the ones from Asemantics) has been simply due to an  
evolution of RDF specifications themselves in the past years;  and the  
growth (and maturity) of specific users requirements in RDF community,  
mainly motivated by the design and implementation of the firsts  
real-world RDF and Semantic Web systems.

In fact, most (if not all) our extensions/requirements has been  
contemplated by the current UC&R document, especially as proposed in  
the BRQL language draft recently - and we are in fact considering  
having a try to express our extensions using BRQL instead of basic  
RDQL. And what it is not contemplated in the current BRQL syntax can be  
most probably be expressed using ad-hoc AND constraints or extension  
functions.

Yours

Alberto
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 19:06:46 GMT

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