- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:56:26 +0300
- To: "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
As stated during the telecon, if this equates to a requirement that query results be returned as an RDF graph, then I also fully support this. If it means something else, then I have no idea what that is or whether I'd support it... Patrick On Apr 02, 2004, at 00:01, ext Dave Beckett wrote: > > > > This mail seems relevant. RDF triples is what I'd support > as a potential requirement. I'm already expecting to > implement this, for Sesame / SeRQL style approaches. > > QL syntaxes is another and entirely different matter. > > Dave > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:54:21 +0100 > From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net> > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: getting rdf query results as an rdf graph > Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 13:49:07 -0500 (EST) > Resent-From: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > > > Hi All, > > I've been involved in developing 5 RDF applications to date, and in > each I've found that the same architectural pattern emerges each time: > > - Application has an in-memory rdf store(s), which it manages and > accesses via simple fine-grained API. (sortof the M in MVC) > > - A number of larger RDF sources/stores exist, which contain > information useful to the application. > > - Application performs remote queries on the larger RDF sources, and > inserts/merges the results into its local rdf store(s). > > - Application uses simpler fine-grained api to walk the internal > store(s) whilst performing application logic (rendering UI etc..) > > > This is the case even for web-applications with a stateless middle > tier (i.e. an internal rdf model is built up on each request). > > The reason that I'm writing is that in order to facilitate this style > of architecture, ideally the larger rdf stores need to support > returning query results as an rdf graph (sometimes a specially > constructed rdf graph). > As far as I can see, only Sesame directly supports this (via its seRQL > construct query), which confuses me. > > Is this an uncommon approach? > Are there disadvantages to this approach compared to using a query > result format that binds variables to result values (e.g. rdql)? > > Many thanks, > > Phil > > > > > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 02:58:32 UTC