W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

RE: RDF IG meeting at W3C Technical Plenary 2001-02-28

From: Matola,Tod <matola@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:44:50 -0500
Message-ID: <E5431CF93E29F9478878F623E5B9CE9833DA17@OA3-SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>
Hello Dan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:26 PM
> To: Matola,Tod
> Cc: 'Seth Russell'; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RDF IG meeting at W3C Technical Plenary 2001-02-28
> [snip]
> And sometimes you'll prefer to
> treat it as a tabular result-set a la JDBC/ODBC. In fact its possible
> (though not necessarily wise -- discuss!) to overload the Java JDBC
> machinery to talk to this kind of RDF query system. 
I can see the motivation for this overload (it's out there, have a pattern
to graft onto, we can see results quickly), but doesn't it build in the
assumption of language, where as, sending back more RDF would free us from a
particular language. I guess what I'm getting at is: 
 if we think it is a good idea to encode the query in RDF, why not the
resultset as well?

I like the concept of the subQueries (subselects) though, I guess I have
been thinking more along the line of intersecting the resultsets in a
recursive way.

Cheers Tod...
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 13:44:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC