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

Re: W3C acknowledges RDQL submission from HP

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:25:14 +0000
Message-ID: <400856BA.60909@eircom.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

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
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 16:25:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT