RE: BRQL and typed literals

1. I thought that it was a requirement that the query language
   would support the full expressivity of RDF graphs. After all,
   it doesn't do much good to have assertions in a graph that
   one cannot query. IMO, a query language that does not support
   arbitrary typed literals is not an RDF query language.

2. Simply adopt the standard N-Triples notation for typed literals
   including support for qnames (e.g. "10"^^xsd:integer). If a given
   query engine/service supports the datatype in question, fine, else
   it issues an error.

But I've covered this in detail in earlier postings to the DAWG list.
Do a search. I'm sure they are easy enough to find in the archives.

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Seaborne, Andy [mailto:andy.seaborne@hp.com]
> Sent: 27 July, 2004 13:28
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BRQL and typed literals
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick!
> 
> > I do wonder about the lack of any treatment for arbitrary
> > typed literals. 
> 
> What would such treatment look like?  Something over-and-above adding
> extension functions to the constraints?  A quick sketch (and 
> test cases??
> ;-) would push the cause matter along.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com <>
> > Date: 27 July 2004 10:48
> > 
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > Just wanted to send a brief note saying that I find BRQL to
> > be quite promising, particularly its inclusion of the DESCRIBE
> > clause.
> > 
> > I do wonder about the lack of any treatment for arbitrary
> > typed literals. I'm presuming it is planned, but simply not
> > added yet, eh?  ;-)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Patrick Stickler
> > Nokia, Finland
> > patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 06:49:03 UTC