W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2004

Re: [ANN] Nemo (i.e. why I wrote Nemo)

From: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20041201213202.29767.qmail@web42209.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Damian Steer <damian.steer@hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Laurian Gridinoc <laurian@gmail.com>

Damian,

Thanks for the clarification.  I don't think I every
really had a good grasp on how treehugger or RDFTwig
worked, I guess.  I'm sorry for spreading
disinformation.  ;-)

> That's not really true of either RDFTwig or
treehugger. 

Consider myself corrected.

> I've been using it on models with a few hundred
thousand 
> triples and it's pretty nippy.

That's impressive.  If it's a public model, mind
sending me the link?  Nemo could use some more
testing.

> >   * They seem to concentrate on quereies stored in

> > seperate files.  For my purposes, it is more 
> > advantageous to query rdf data that is embedded in
a 
> > file.
> 
> Well the queries are over models which could be
database 
> backed or/and have inferencing. As for data embedded
in 
> files, well if ARP can parse it we can use it.

What I mean is something like:

<document>
  <metadata>
    <!-- rdf data -->
  </metadata>
  <body>
    <!-- document text -->
  </body>
</document>

That's the inital reason why I was looking into
RDF-in-XSLT support in the first place.  I could use a
pipe, but I wanted to do querying directly in the
transform stage.

I also felt that the approaches of querying documents
by treehugger and RDFTwig were complicated, while RDQL
just clicked in my head.  In my mind, I think in RDF
very differently than with XML's model.  The path-like
approaches just didn't make much sense to me.  Now, I
think I understand where you are comming from. 
However, I still perfer RDQL (it is how I think).

> 1) If you want to make a query that returns rdf
CONSTRUCT 
> (from Sesame originally) is very interesting.

Ack!  I can see where it is useful, but I'd rather
keep transformation neatly seperated from the querying
specification.

> 2) Queries can return results in an XML format [2]
that 
> can subsequently be transformed with xslt or XQuery.

> Alberto Reggiori and Andy Seaborne have
demonstrations of 
> this (I'll try to find the references if you're 
> interested).

Sounds interesting.

> Hope this has clarified some things, and good luck
> with Nemo

Thank you.  I'm sorry for spreading disinformation. 
;-)

-- Jimmy Cerra


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT