- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:13:09 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
>On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 10:47:50AM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >> 3.1 Multiple RDF triple matching >> >> The query langauge must include the capability to restrict matches on the >> RDF graph by providing more than one RDF triple pattern to be satisified in >> one query. > >This is -- with very small modifications -- the new wording in my >working copy of the UC&R doc. I think it's an improvement over >path/edge talk. We'll see if consensus forms around it. This is better than the 'path' way of talking. It seems to me however that all these proposed wordings are hesitating at the edge of what needs to be said, which is that a query pattern must be allowed to be an RDF graph pattern rather than simply a single triple pattern. A graph, in this context, is just a set of triples, recall. There is no need to talk explicitly about shared variables: if one allows variables to occur in a graph then one would need special conditions to avoid shared variables, so not saying anything implicitly allows them. One other point, the phrase 'the RDF graph' here may be too restrictive, and in any case isnt clear enough. Some querying services might use more than one graph, or might access a constantly changing graph. So I'd suggest that we choose a phrase like 'server' (or 'source' or 'base' or 'answer' or some such) and use it consistently as a name and as a qualifier, as in 'server graph', meaning the notional RDF graph used by the server to answer the query. Pat Hayes >Best, >Kendall -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:13:21 UTC