- From: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:36:10 +0900
- To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
And what's the difference between "quried graph" and "original quried graph?" If no differece, why we use the latter in 3.4? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com> To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:46 AM Subject: Subgraph results Is the term "subgraph" (used in requirement 3.4) formally defined anywhere? 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 18:40:31 UTC