- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:57:28 +0200
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: 'Asemantics Staff' <staff@asemantics.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall thanks for collecting and reporting misc comments about evaluations - see our short comments below about RDQL On Jun 28, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Kendall Clark wrote: > > Design Evaluations > ------------------ > > -RDQL- > > Alberto Reggiori follows up with useful info re: the utility > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/ > 0500.html > > -RDQL, the Asemantics Dialect- > > Evaluation by Alberto Reggiori, in response to Eric s eval of RDQL > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/ > 0502.html we would rather change the text above and drop the 'Asemantics Dialect' phrasing and replacing it with a less stronger text like 'Asemantics implementation experience' or use a more generic piece of text. It is important to note that our work is based on RDQL, built on it and it is compatible with the original specification - we explicitly avoided the design of a new query language. And we rather tried to build (and promote) a simple basic common denominator between different RDF SQL-alike query languages in the past years. Many of the existing RDQL/SquishQL implementations like Jena, Inkling, RubyRDF, RDFdb, RDFStore, Sesame, PHP/RAP, 3Store, Rasqual and others have been a good example of this. We think that the result in different RDQL implementations and extensions (such as the ones from Asemantics) has been simply due to an evolution of RDF specifications themselves in the past years; and the growth (and maturity) of specific users requirements in RDF community, mainly motivated by the design and implementation of the firsts real-world RDF and Semantic Web systems. In fact, most (if not all) our extensions/requirements has been contemplated by the current UC&R document, especially as proposed in the BRQL language draft recently - and we are in fact considering having a try to express our extensions using BRQL instead of basic RDQL. And what it is not contemplated in the current BRQL syntax can be most probably be expressed using ad-hoc AND constraints or extension functions. Yours Alberto
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 19:06:46 UTC