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

Re: protocol draft updated, open issue proposals (fromUnionQuery)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:55:34 -0500
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1116266134.11315.122.camel@localhost>

On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 14:24 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
>      $Revision: 1.36 $ of $Date: 2005/05/14 18:08:45 $
>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
> 1. Close fromUnionQuery, with the comment that the protocol draft
>    needs more example traces, including ones where there are named
>    graphs in the RDF dataset and ones where the the RDF dataset is set
>    only in the query proper (i.e., a query with FROM and FROM NAMED
>    bits) and in both the protocol and in the query proper.

I think the design is stabilizing here, but
I'd sure like to see a tad more implementation experience with this
before I put the question.

I've run queries using just the background graph
(using either the FROM keyword or default-graph-uri) and I'm satisfied
that we're on the same page there.
I've been noodling on how to capture them as test cases, but
that's not critical path...

Does anybody have code that can run maybe a handful of examples
 - using FROM and FROM NAMED in the QL, with 2 or 3 of each
 - using named-graph-uri in the QL
 - using both, showing that the override works and makes sense

For those cases, I don't see quite enough evidence that the
design is mature yet.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 18:00:14 UTC

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