W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [DTB] Most editor's notes addressed

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:42:13 -0500
Message-ID: <492ACB55.7020500@gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Axel Polleres wrote:
>>> I was hoping we could get BLD a usable rules language for RDF,
>>> compatible with SPARQL. (And similar problems will arise if we pursue to
>>> suggest RIF to the RDB2RDF people: If we as a working group approach
>>> them and say: look at RIF, we should then not be in the position that,
>>> if they agree to do so, having to answer them: "BUT, BTW RIF doesn't
>>> work for that, you need to do your own dialect from scratch, your
>>> problem...")
>>>
>>> I see some very fundamental issues here.
>>
>> I would be very interested to see whether there are any features
>> required by RDB2RDF that are not provided by RIF.
> 
> I have no concrete example as of now, but my rationale is: if we run 
> into troubles with SPARQL, we might also run into troubles with SQL, 
> since they share many underlying assumptions.

If you're going to judge BLD by itself in terms of its suitability to address 
the requirements of datatabase query language you will certainly find it falls 
short.  So don't set unreasonable expectations - BLD is the *basic* *logic* 
dialect.  I realize you know this, but when you say "I was hoping we could get 
BLD a usable rules language for RDF, compatible with SPARQL," it makes me think 
you've forgotten.

The RIF approach to something like RDB2RDF would be to start with BLD and then 
extend it to a dialect that supports the additional things they need. And 
depending on how hard you stress "need" (as opposed to "want" or "would find 
convenient") you will probably find the dialect is not a big extension.

[As an aside, I was just working with some DB folks last week here (on something 
unrelated) and overheard the comment, "most experts know the 2/3 of SQL to 
avoid".  SPARQL also has its things to avoid.]

-Chris

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 15:42:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT