- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:07:35 -0500
- To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 23:15, Rob Shearer wrote: [...] > I propose that we adopt a syntax > which is fully compatible with XQuery, in that every DAWG query is in > fact a valid XQuery. I managed to read thru this once, somewhat carefully but pretty quickly, and it looks like a pretty complete proposal. I see just a couple points that look significantly different from BRQL, other than surface syntax and the omission of optionals that you discussed... > XQuery syntax makes it quite straightforward to add as much, or as > little, structure as you like to a result: > > for $x in dawg:anything(), $name in dawg:anything() $mbox in > dawg:anything() > where dawg:related($x, foaf:name, $name) > and dawg:related($x, foaf:box, $mbox) > return <x><name>{$name}</name><mbox>{$mbox}</mbox></x> > > <x><name>Johnny Lee > Outlaw</name><mbox>mailto:jlow@example.com</mbox></x> > <x><name>Peter Goodguy</name><mbox>mailto:peter@example.org</mbox></x> That's a significant difference. BRQL queries return binding sets or graphs; handling arbitrary XQuery data models is different. And how does this proposal handle returning graph results? I suppose another function to go with dawg:anything() to return the original graph would do it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 13:07:27 UTC