- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:58:19 -0500
- To: sesame-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Hi Within W3C, we're looking into phase 2 of the Semantic Web activity. In terms of possible new technology areas, 'Rules' and 'Query' are two topics for recommendation-track work. So I'm looking at http://sesame.aidministrator.nl/publications/users/ch05s06.html with some interest. The CONSTRUCT mechanism appears to provide a bridge between the world of RDF query systems and RDF-based rule systems. CONSTRUCT {Artist} <rdf:type> {<art:Painter>}; <art:hasPainted> {Painting} FROM {Artist} <rdf:type> {<art:Artist>}; <art:hasCreated> {Painting} <rdf:type> {<art:Painting>} In this light, do folks on these lists think it is sustainable to maintain that there's an interesting distinction still to be made between work on RDF 'query' languages vs 'rules' languages. Can folks here imagine a workable W3C RDF Query WG constrained not to get into Rules WG territory, but to maximise compatibility with a (future? parallel) Working Group on Rule languages for RDF? Or are the two technology areas too close? (I invite continuation of this thread on www-rdf-rules, am sending this to Sesame list too initially) thanks for your thoughts on this, Dan
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 10:03:35 UTC