- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:56:45 +0100
- To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:15:11PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 13:21, Steve Harris wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:22:24 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 06:17:16PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > > > > > > conjunctive ones, but it explodes the number of queries needed > > > > dramatically. > > > > > > In cases where the implementation strategy is based on RDBMS/SQL or in > > > every case? I genuinely don't know. > > > > In every case - the algorithm prduces a number of prurely conjunctive > > expressions from a mixed dis/con-juntive one. > > Really? I can't think of an algorithm for the simplest case: > > (<book1> dc:title "War and Peace") OR (<book2> tc:title "Moby Dick") > > Oh.. you mean you turn it into *multiple* queries. Maybe I see. Yes. > Don't you need negation in some cases? Um, possibly yes, that would be a problem for me if so, but not neccesarily for all approaches. > > Bear in mind that those are the /exact/ translations, the optional > > expression users really write are the natural ones and dont have the hairy > > disjuntive value constraints. > > That seems to be the most relevant point/question, to me: do we > expect users to find the optional constructs straightforward for 80% > to 95% of the cases? Or do we expect them to say "hey; where's the OR > thingy?" in their first week of usage? I've never been asked for OR, but I have only a hundred or so end users, Andy has far more than that and I think he mentioned he had seen requests for OR, but not how many. - Steve
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2004 09:56:51 UTC