Re: W3C acknowledges RDQL submission from HP

Bob MacGregor wrote:



> Note: Adding 'NOT' is not without controversy, since the deductive
> DB folks will want it to mean negation as failure, while the open world
> folks will want it to mean classical negation.

Perhaps we need both forms in the language, or language profiles (a 
la OWL).


> In my opinion, it would be a mistake to consider
> standardization of a language that leaves out some very basic
> (and essential) capabilities.
> Therefore, I would recommend reducing the hype a bit (the
> word 'standardization') until the language begins to mature.

Nonetheless I'm for one delighted to see this note and agree that 
RDQL (or SonOfRDQL) is a good thing - it will make RDF backed data a 
much easier sell. Many of the cases I've seen where RDF was 
potentially useful are capture/query driven (warehousing, annotation 
and post-facto analysis rather than information to pass into an 
agent). There's not much point merging and gathering this 
standardized metadata stuff if you can't ask questions of it in a 
tool agnostic way!

Bill de hÓra