- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:57:01 +0200
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
That's right Andy, both make sense. For the other one we could for instance ask for the cities within 20 miles of Cambridge i.e. http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danC.n3 and apply that kind of query for instance to the source http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danP.n3 to get back http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danE.n3 and of course, in that way the query can be applied to other sources. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com> Sent by: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org 14/05/2004 14:33 To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org> cc: Subject: RE: Bookmarkable queries Jos, To my reading of your example suggests the requriment for bookmarkability (the concept, not necessary the URL mechanism). That gives the ability to record making a query request of a particular knowledge base. The example of asking the same query of a whole bunch of sources shows the case where the query is reused in making requests to different sources,e.g. other places recording the same information, using the same namespace Both are useful. We have: Query ==> Query+target ==> Query request instance i.e. a the query (no target) becomes a partially instantiated request (query+target) then becomes used for the request. There are cases for all three (the last is useful for recording the action performed). Andy -----Original Message----- From: Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com] Sent: 13 May 2004 23:33 To: andy.seaborne@hp.com Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group'; 'Rob Shearer' Subject: RE: Bookmarkable queries >> I think requirement 3.8 brings up major questions about just >> what we consider a "query". Does a "query" include a >> selection of the RDF source, or can the same query be >> executed against different sources? (The latter seems much >> more sensible to me...) > > +1 : I don't see why the query should need to record the > execution but I can be persuaded by an example. At the moment, > I see it as a protocol matter concerned more with selecting > the service access point. Although I was used to put the selection of the RDF source(s) in the protocol (e.g. as command line arguments) I became more convinced that putting them in the query expression is also interesting. For a simple example that asks for the lat/long coordinates of Chicago or Cambridge, see http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danQ.n3 i.e. @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>. @prefix da: <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/euler#>. @prefix d: <http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danP#>. (d: owl: rdfs:).da:from da:select {{?C d:cityName "Cambridge"; d:latitude ?LA; d:longitude ?LO} => {("Cambridge" ?LA ?LO) a d:Result}}, {{?C d:cityName "Chicago"; d:latitude ?LA; d:longitude ?LO} => {("Chicago" ?LA ?LO) a d:Result}}. where that d: is actually one of the RDF sources and the answer I actually got is ("Cambridge" 42.3 -71.1) a d:Result. ("Chicago" 41.9 -87.6) a d:Result. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 May 2004 10:59:40 UTC