On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > 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). +1 http://esw.w3.org/topic/DawgShows additionally might be of use to some interested in learning more about SPARQL. -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 14:45:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:32 GMT