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