Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:04:43 +0100

> First of all, don't shoot at the messenger...:-) But I try to anticipate
> the arguments.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: draft responses for LC comment FH3/29
>> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:17:40 +0100
>> 
>>> In fact, re-reading Jan's comments, I realize that his remark is a
>>> little bit different. He understands that the motivation for having
>>> OWL/XML is to have something that works well in an XML infrastructure
>>> but his claim is that an RDF WG should come up with an XML encoding of
>>> RDF that would play well with XML (and use that to encode OWL) rather
>>> than having a separate OWL/XML syntax.
>> 
>> I don't see how this could work right.
>> 
> 
> Well, we do have a canonical RDF mapping of OWL. Ie, instead of mapping
> the result of the RDF mapping to RDF/XML, one could do this with
> another, XML-tool friendly XML encoding. I am not sure I understand the
> problem...
> 
>> In the current XML serialization, it is possible to XQuery for things
>> like QCRs.  How would that work if QCRs are broken up into triples, even
>> if you could use XQuery to find triples of a particular flavour?
>> 
> 
> It of course all relies on having an RDF triples follow our mapping
> documents.

How would this work?  (I guess a multi-way join could do it, if you can
do joins in XQuery.  Even so it would be quite a complex and expensive
operation, as opposed to querying in the XML serialization.)

> Ivan

peter

Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 11:15:09 UTC