W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: A Comparison of RDF Query Languages

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:23:29 -0500
To: raphael@volz.info
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, 'Gary Ng' <Gary.Ng@networkinference.com>, 'Kendall Clark' <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, 'Rob Shearer' <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Message-Id: <1083349409.460.609.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 14:52, Raphael Volz wrote:
> Dear Rob (and all other DA WG members),
> our comparison is neither intended to argue about what a RDF query
> language should be nor - by any means - intended to force you to take
> notice of our results. We posted it across the various RDF-related
> mailing lists, including the public RDF data access group list, to
> inform interested parties of our results and get feedback.

In the future, please rely on RDF DAWG members to notice the discussion
in forums such as www-rdf-rules and bring up related points in the
DAWG as they become relevant to our agenda.

> The report is by no means complete with respect to all (publicly and
> privately) available query languages. Our criteria for inclusion of a
> given language was primarily based on whether or not we could get hold
> of good documentation and a freely available running prototype. This was
> necessary in order to formulate queries and to have a certain confidence
> in the Yes/No rating for certain language features. 
> The document could be a useful input for the documents that the group
> has to produce. We will comment on the documents produced by the group
> at their respective public review periods as suggested by W3C process.

We look forward to it.

> Cheers
> Raphael 
> (on behalf of Peter Haase, Andreas Eberhart and Jeen Broekstra)
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 14:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:26 UTC