W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

SeRQL an RDF rule language: scoping Rules vs Query in W3C work

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
Message-ID: <20031103145819.GT20980@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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:10 GMT