- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:27:15 -0500
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Duncan Hull wrote on 03/06/2006 04:00:11 AM: > chris mungall wrote: > > > I think both approaches are a little too XML-centric; fine for a few > > use cases but in general the syntax obscures the declarative > > semantics of the mapping which must be kept as perspicuous as > > possible. Why not just use an RDF query language? > > > Agreed. The thing with RDF is that there are so many query languages to > choose from :) > > http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/ Of course, the best bet would likely be to go with SPARQL[1], the RDF Query Language defined by the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group (DAWG)[2]. The DAWG produces specifications for both the query language and a protocol to issue queries and receive results (either as an RDF graph or as an XML representation of a result set). Lee [1] SPARQL Query Language Last Call draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ [2] DAWG homepage: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:27:32 UTC