W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: evaluating SPARQL w.r.t an RDF query language survey (valueTesting)

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:51:47 +0200
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6C7E49E8.D4B8DF98-ONC1256FE2.0055147C-C1256FE2.00572385@agfa.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 01:30 +0200, jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > > That was not a popular design when it was discussed in Helsinki
> > > under issue useMentionOp
> > >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html#itemumop
> > >  <- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#useMentionOp
> > >
> > > Let's see... no, you weren't there for that one. You might
> > > want to look over the record of that item and see if the
> > > rationale/discussion there satisfies you. (I think I meant
> > > to abstain but was too busy chairing to get my abstention
> > > recorded.)
> > 
> > OK, I read record and would certainly have liked the discussion
> > (but had other f2f's at that time) and all I can really add
> > is that we use that design of "treating mathematical inferences
> > like RDFS and other inferences" since 5 years it really works.
> > 
> > > If not, you can ask to re-open the issue.
> > 
> > An implementation can convert pieces of WHERE triple patterns
> > into certain internal (FILTER) expressions and they could
> > behave much like traditional programming language expressions
> > and I think it is best to keep that for the implementation
> > instead of prescibing it (just being delarative is fine).
> > Also given the position below, I would ask to re-open and
> > drop FILTER.
> I think useMentionOp wasn't really the closest issue to
> what you're talking about. I think valueTesting is closer.
> valueTesting is currently open. EricP and DaveB have
> an action to present a design by the 19 Apr teleconference.
> I expect them to continue with the FILTER design.
> I think it's reasonably mature. I was able to use it
> for many of these survey examples. Jeen turned those
> into tests and Andy pointed out that ARQ handles them.
> I think there are a lot of details to work out in
> moving things like < and = out of FILTER and into
> the graph pattern... especially w.r.t. negation.
> I'm not sure anybody has time to work out a complete
> proposal. But I guess you have it implemented, so maybe
> you can explain how the various details work?

it all works like explained in
and we have all our work done that way

> You might try taking each of the examples from the
> editor's draft and each of these query language survey
> examples and writing them without FILTER.

more than happy to do that and was able to spend some time
last night (but had to fix issue for unify with ?x@de)
(we will follow up some of those on public-cwm-talk)

the data we assume is the data at
but I changed
@prefix :

the n3 queries are at

and the results are at

I think they all work
ah.. in some cases with rdfs:member we also assume

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 15:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC