W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2002

Re: (Announce) Sesame 0.6 released

From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:57:55 +0200
Message-ID: <3D770E83.6080103@aidministrator.nl>
To: Ashley Yakeley <ashley@semantic.org>
CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Ashley Yakeley wrote:

 > RQL and RDQL seem to be different solutions for the same problem, is
 > that correct?

More or less, yes. Each has its own merits, so depending on your use one
is preferable over the other.

 > How do they compare?

RDQL is simpler than RQL, and less expressive. Yet it is expressive
enough for many practical applications. Added advantage might be that
its syntax is slightly more comprehensible than RQL's.

The distinguishing feature of RQL would be that support for RDF Schema
semantics is built in in the QL itself (in contrast to most other QLs
including RDQL, which only assume a triple model). The advantage of this
is that you can express very powerful queries, mixing data and schema
information explicitly.

Anyway, since Sesame supports both QLs, just give them both a swing and
see which one you like best :) There is a tutorial for RQL on the Sesame
demo site[1], and the Jena team[2] has an excellent tutorial available
online for RDQL.

Regards,

Jeen

[1] http://sesame.aidministrator.nl/
[2] http://www.hpl.hp.com/semweb/jena-top.html
-- 
jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl
aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/
julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands
tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 03:58:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT