- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:24:22 -0500
- To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 03:07:15PM -0800, Rob Shearer wrote: > > (Just realized we don't yet have use cases demonstrated complex graphs > or disjunction.) FatAnnotationQuery (in the message Subject: EP-1 - EP-4 including promised general metadata query) has a disjuntion dealing with the fact that dublin core changed namespace but is the semantics are conflatable (identical, really) for the purposes of the queryying application. an excerpt: ... <http://example.com/annot1> a:context ?context. ( <http://example.com/annot1> dc0:creator ?creator || <http://example.com/annot1> dc1:creator ?creator ) ?creator a:E-mail ?email. ... Perhaps I should split those queries out into separate messages. > There exists an RDF repository containing accounting firms, companies, > and their customers, related via properties "accountsFor" and > "hasCustomer" (let's ignore any inheritance relations for the moment): > > _:pwc hasName "PriceWaterhouseCoopers"^^xsd:string > _:boe hasName "Boeing"^^xsd:string > _:mil hasName "US Military"^^xsd:string > _:pwd accountsFor _:boe > _:boe hasCustomer _:mil > > a) The user wants to retrieve the names of all firms which do accounts > for suppliers of the military. > > b) The user wants to retrieve the names of all the firms which either do > accounts for suppliers of the military, or do accounts for the military > itself. > > > I'm sure there are much better demonstrations of the point, but the > situation of users interested in more than just properties within one > hop of a query node is very very common. (A use case demonstrating more > sophisticated graph constructs might be useful.) > The ability to use disjunction or union is also a pretty big deal; > requiring users to join their own results pretty much guarantees that > our query language is confined to programmatic interfaces as parts of > large systems. Real users will want to be able to do this kind of thing > (and get easily-interpretable results) without writing any custom code. agreed. Relational DBs also lean heavily on outter joins (which correspond pretty closely to optional triples) and something I think called safe negotiation (ala don't tell me about the solutions where _:pwd is bound to FredCo). I'll submit a couple in a *separate message*. (/me learns from his mistakes) -- -eric office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC, Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University, 5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520 JAPAN +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA cell: +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia) (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 11:46:08 UTC