W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

SPARXQL Re: RDF+Transformation = XHTML or is there sth like inverse GRDDL?

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:28:49 -0400
Message-Id: <AFC28A20-9B2B-411F-BC42-E3216AE64622@w3.org>
Cc: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, al@jku.at, semantic-web@w3.org
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>

It seems to me that we have two  query clauses

-  FOR ... LET .. WHERE from XQuery and

-  WHERE .. FILTER ... from SPARQL

These basically generate bindings of named variables to things with  
XSD data types.  We now have various ways of consuming these bindings:

- RETURN from XQuery, and

- CONSTRUCT or SELECT or DESCRIBE  (or INSERT or DELETE ... oops not  
yet :-) from SPARQL.

If I were making some mamoth software product I might just throw  
those together as they seem to be, in a mixed XML/RDF world, or on  
the XML edges of an all-RDF world, useful in an combination. Would  
the SPARAXQL spec (SPARX for short?) be obvious combination of the  
two specs?  The transitions between ordered and unordered should work  

The frightening thing would be the test suite!

This seems to be a good idea against my better judgement.  My better  
judgement says one should keep languages simple and clean and avoid  
RDF systems having to know about the XML data model and vice-versa.


On 2007-07 -04, at 10:01, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Keith, yes, SPARQL CONSTRUCTXML would be very similar to XQuery, but
> using an RDF graph matching instead of XPath expressions. [...]
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 16:28:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC