RE: Incompatibilities in RDQL implementations

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
> > Steve Harris wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:16:35 +0100, Phil Dawes wrote:
> > >
> > >>SELECT ?family , ?given
> > >>WHERE  (?vcard  vcard:FN "John Smith")
> > >>       (?vcard  vcard:N  ?name)
> > >>       (?name   vcard:Family  ?family)
> > >>       (?name   vcard:Given  ?given)
> > >>USING  vcard FOR <http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Unfortunately both Sesame(1.0) and RAP(0.71) require '<' and '>'
> > >>around qnames for the query to parse.
> > >
> > >
> > > FWIW 3store requires both <>'s and commas, the commas thing is a bug and
> > > will be fixed. I'm be reluctant to remove or stop requireing
> > the <>'s as I
> > > think it makes the queries more readable.
> >
> > ObAOL: Ditto for Sesame.
>
> What about the potential confusion between <vcard:Family> qname and
> <vcard:Family> new URI scheme?
>
> While I don't use RDQL much, I note that N3 has the same convention: <>
> indicate URI, no-<> indicates qname.
>
>


We had several discussions about this during the design of Squish and
related discussions with Andy about RDQL. Dan Brickley and I argued that

* the number of cases where the qname and uri schemes were likely to
clash was small and could be avoided with sensible queries, and

* potentially, being able to embed RDF queries in XML meant that it
was probably best to avoid < >

Libby