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

Subgraph results

From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:46:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CFE388CECDDB1E43AB1F60136BEB49730280B7@rome.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Is the term "subgraph" (used in requirement 3.4) formally defined

I'm trying to find a way to get around my objections to this
requirement; perhaps making it clear that the requirement is about
result formatting and not underlying structure would help:

"It must be possible for query results to be formatted as a subgraph of
the original queried graph."

This changes "returned" to "formatted", uses "a subgraph" instead of
"the subgraph", and drops "that the query matches". The original way the
requirement was worded it seemed that the query processor would need to
somehow figure out all the pieces of the original graph which had any
relevence to the "matching" process, and that whole process is only
meaningful for completely trivial query languages.

I feel very strongly that we should keep deciding on the answers
separate from the result format.

(All that said, I'm still not comfortable supporting even my reworded
requirement without a real definition for "subgraph".)
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 13:48:12 UTC

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