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

Re: ACTION: discuss & promote union query (Was: ACTION: a replacement for 4.5 focussed on union query)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:02:03 -0400
To: Simon Raboczi <raboczi@tucanatech.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040824140203.GA5582@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:29:36PM +1000, Simon Raboczi wrote:
> Incorporating Dan's suggestions brings us to the following state of 
> play:
> [[
> 4.5 Querying multiple sources
> It should be possible for a query to specify which of the available RDF 
> graphs it is to be executed against.  If more than one RDF graph is 
> specified, the result is as it the query had been executed against the 
> merge[1] of the specified RDF graphs.
> Some services only offer to query one graph; they are considered to 
> trivially satisfy this objective.
> While a variety of use cases motivate this feature, it is not a 
> requirement because it is not clear whether this feature can be 
> implemented in a generally scalable fashion.
> ]]


As I read this new language, the only difference between it and the
existing language in UC&R is the addition of the third, explanatory
paragraph? Is that right?

Also, I think I'm becoming convinced about the utility and elegance of
yr graph-centric approach, which I like in iTQL (though I have some
worries about iTQL syntax, I don't think those are relevant here since
BRQL is moving in a diff direction).

Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 14:03:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:44 UTC