Re: [Fwd: FROM keyword unnecessary?]

Proposed reply on the DAWG comments list:

----------------

Hi Phil,

Thank you very much for the observation.  Keep them coming.

At the moment, DAWG is only just on the point of having a protocol
specification so the relationship between the various elements of
the working group's outputs have yet to be worked out.  It is
certainly true that target identification is a necessary protocol
feature and that the API does also provide a way to identify the
target.

There seems no necessity for FROM but it can be convenient.  There
are other local use cases such as scripts - SPARQL is not just a
query language embedded in programs - but the API case can be
expected to be quite common.

	Andy
	on behalf of DAWG

----------------

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: FROM keyword unnecessary?
> Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:06:22 +0000
> Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:42:46 +0000
> From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> 
> 
> Hi Andy, Hi Dawg comments
> 
> I'm struggling to see the value of having the 'FROM' functionality in
> the query language, even in the local case.
> 
> Andy Seaborne writes: (in the Named Containers post)
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > ==== FROM
>  >
>  > This is as much about "protocol" as query but its needed for the
local
>  > query case where there isn't a protocol layer."
>  >
> 
> In the local case I would consider the protocol layer to be the
> programming API, and the FROM functionality fits equally nicely in
> this layer as it does for the remote protocol.
> 
> Moreover, 'FROM' buys little in terms of interoperablitiy in the local
> case, since the client still has to use a seperate api to stage the
> RDF store(s) and actually issue the query.
> 
> (all IMHO!)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 15:23:38 UTC