W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > September 2007

RE: I read a challenge. was, Re: [gofriends] GO ontology in OWL format

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:16:48 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C2032D6FC6@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Cc: <markov@mpiz-koeln.mpg.de>, <groscurt@mpiz-koeln.mpg.de>, <schoof@mpiz-koeln.mpg.de>, "chris mungall" <cjm@fruitfly.org>

FYI, this paper and talk from Jim Melton of Oracle may be of interest:
http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/paper/119
http://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/0301-melton-query-langs.pdf
In the paper he mentions:
[[
SPARQL syntax makes virtually all join operations implicit, while SQL
syntax usually makes them explicit. A consequence of this design
decision is that the SQL expressions to answer typical questions that
will be asked against RDF collections tend to be much larger and
somewhat more difficult to create (correctly!) because of the need to
write explicit join operations and the requisite explicit join
conditions. Because typical questions asked of RDF involve several,
sometimes many, join operations, SPARQL provides a more compact notation
that is perhaps easier to get right with less debugging time spent.
]]

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
 
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 14:18:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:49 GMT