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

RE: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 20:19:28 +0100
To: "'Kendall Clark'" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c4339f$10ea8c80$0a01a8c0@atlas>


I don't see this as needing to go in the candidate requirements.  It doesn't
seem to be a top level requirement to me.  Maybe I was just assuming it
would happen.

I see the requirements list as the the most important ones.  Was there a
reason behind wanting it in the list that means it is significant enough?

Do other people see that this is above the cut line for this document?


-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 06 May 2004 18:53
> Requirement
> -----------
> It should be possible to query the RDFS structure of an RDF
> graph to find, for example, the parents and instances of a class or the
> class tree. 
> Discussion
> ----------
> I'm not sure whether this comes down, in the end, to a
> semantic requirement or just a request for sugar for a
> particular kind of query; but what my users need (and we have
> implemented in a really ugly, API munging way) is the ability
> to ask for all the instances of a class, all the parents of a
> class, and so on. Being able to do these queries, and being
> able to do them "easily" (yes, I know, untestable, but
> still...) is a real requirement for us.
> The DIG Description Logic Interface ASK language is, more or
> less, what we'd like to have. See

Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 15:20:15 UTC

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