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: Simon Raboczi <raboczi@tucanatech.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:25:55 +1000
Message-Id: <8258AE70-F5D9-11D8-A86B-000A95C5686E@tucanatech.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

On 25/08/2004, at 0:02, Kendall Clark wrote:

> 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?

No, the second paragraph is also an addition.  I had it as a comment in 
my initial drafting, but it was Dan who suggested making it part of the 
actual text.

> Also, I think I'm becoming convinced about the utility and elegance of
> yr graph-centric approach

It'd be much more convincing if I could get around to writing out the 
formal model -- mostly because people generally find extending syntax 
to be fun, but extending mathematical proof to be painful.  It should 
hurt whenever our query model bloats.  ;)
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 14:26:30 UTC

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