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

Re: Subgraph results

From: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:36:10 +0900
Message-ID: <02a601c437a8$5d639fe0$1a48b4db@delldell>
To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

And what's  the difference between "quried graph" and "original quried

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

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

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