- From: Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:49:25 +0200
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>>Very good starting point. Formally may I suggest >>we could use logic programming notation such >> >>(X, FN:name, "John Smith") > > > Umm... why? Is that a notation we expect our audience to > use when making their feature requests? I think logic programming serves at this point as a nice abstract syntax for which we can find the concrete syntax later. I don't expect feature request arise in this format but I could imagine that within this WG we find this notation easy to formalize the feature. Is this a good assumption? >>The evaluation result would then be either bindings >>for X or if closure is a requirement, we would return >>all triples with X bound to a different value. >> >>I would like to see closure implemented with the query >>language in order to enable refined queries over >>the result graph. > > > Can you motivate this feature with a use case? i.e. > a plausible story from real life? == Task & Roles A client software wishes to connect to server software to find out if it could find an object whose property matches certain value. == Value & Why If the query result is a graph, the client can cache the query result and run another query over the query result. This is far more efficient than repeating the query over to the server again with more criteria set. == Description Looking for content which is written in French (X, dc:language, "fr") and returning all known properties for X should be a complete graph with (X, P1, V1), (X, P2, V2), ... , (X, Pn, Vn) for which another query can be run upon with e.g. additional constraint (X, dc:creator, "John Smith") set. -- Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com> Profium, Lars Sonckin kaari 12, 02600 Espoo, Finland Tel. +358 (0)9 855 98 000 Fax. +358 (0)9 855 98 002 Mob. +358 (0)40 508 4767 Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:49:34 UTC