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

Wilbur Query Language [was: RE: A Comparison of RDF Query Languages]

From: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:39:56 -0400
Message-ID: <A6D9D7495456414BA08DB655C2AC6712015821C9@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Another query language possibly worth adding to the comparison is that of the Wilbur Semantic Web Toolkit (dubbed "WQL"). I have written an analysis of WQL's capabilities vis-a-vis the recently published comparison and its 14 "tests". The draft is available here:


In summary, I consider two separate languages: "Plain" WQL, using only the Wilbur query API, and WQL+CL, where "Plain" WQL query results are manipulated using simple Common Lisp scripting. WQL was designed to be integrated to Common Lisp as an access mechanism. This, and the fact that Common Lisp, through the function EVAL, allows the dynamic runtime execution of arbitrary expressions, justifies the consideration of WQL+CL as a "query language".

"Plain" WQL is capable of satisfying a subset of the tests, but WQL+CL can successfully evaluate *all* tests (albeit some queries are a bit cumbersome :-). Details are included in the above paper.

Questions and comments are welcome.


	- Ora

Ora Lassila  mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center

-----Original Message-----
From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext massimo@w3.org
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:41 AM
To: Andreas Eberhart
Cc: daml-all@daml.org; ontoweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at;
ontoweb-language-sig@cs.man.ac.uk; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org;
semanticweb@yahoogroups.com; seweb-list@www1-c703.uibk.ac.at;
www-webont-wg@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; www-rdf-logic@w3.org;
www-rdf-rules@w3.org; Raphael Volz; pha@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de;
Subject: Re: A Comparison of RDF Query Languages

Related to the recent work of the RDF Data Access Working Group [1], we
have compared six proposals for RDF query languages.
[2] http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/

interesting work; to this regard, you might also want not to skip W3C's
Metalog (cf. http://www.w3.org/RDF/Metalog ).

On the criteria in [2], obviously one might add many different
others as well. Given DAWG's scope, DB-like ops like joins etc might
profitably be included in the list. It would be also nice to express
those use cases in terms of abstract properties, rather than single
use cases: this will help better shaping the requirements document,
keeping a high level of abstraction and generality.

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 22:45:55 UTC

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