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

RE: SeRQL an RDF rule language: scoping Rules vs Query in W3C wor k

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:07:39 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E8081ACF8A@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

I'm not quite clear on the query:

Does this query give a sequence of "graphlets", one per soltuion to the FROM
clause, or a single graph of all the triples from all the solutions?


Another sort fo related question: in the case where the result of a query is
a subgrapgh of the original, does anyone know of any literature describing
algorithms for this subgraph calculation that is faster than simply taking
each solution and merging (that can lead to a lot of unnecessary work)?

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Brickley <mailto:danbri@w3.org>
> Date: 3 November 2003 15:04
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 4 November 2003 08:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:14 UTC