- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:18:03 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 16:33 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > My opinion on this issue is that the query language should allow > construction of whatever RDF dataset design we give. > > This would be in addition to the SPARQL protocol. WSDL1/2 may be a > solution for some people but I can't see using it anytime soon. Regardless of whether it's described in WSDL or prose, what do you want the protocol to look like? Got a concrete design in mind? Please share it if so. > I want to construct the dataset in two ways > > 1. inside the programming API > This would be used inside running programs and for implementing > web interfaces where the URIs given of the graphs can be checked > for denial of service, size, etc. issues before loading into the > system. I don't expect that we'll get into APIs, except inasmuch as a WSDL description can used as an API in some dev platforms. > 2. inside the query language. > This would be when "just running" a query, such as a stock one > ("this one gives you the answer") against a well known or standard > data source. At this point you trust the query. I think we considered that argument before making our decision to take LOAD/FROM out of the QL. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03 > It also allows easy chaining of queries, using an RDF/XML output of > one query via http protocol made with CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE as a data > source for later queries. Chaining seems just as easy to do if LOAD/FROM appears as their own parameters rather than in the SPARQL query parameter. > 3. on the command line > Either of #1 and #2 enable SPARQL to work on the (unix) command > line allowing RDF to enter the processing data pipeline but #2 also > allows easier data integration (fan-in) which is rather more clumsy > to do with lots of -d URI command parameters. This is a weaker > reason I admit. Again, command line args seem an awful lot like protocol parameters. A WSDL description is just a way of saying "you can put these in an API, or on a command line, or in a network protocol, but this is the information that goes in a request, for this interface". > I have implemented and am already all of #1, #2 and #3 Got some example command lines? I expect they correspond neatly to GET requests. > Without the WITH/FROM equivalent it makes the language much less > interesting and useful to me and rather too statically designed for > what I've always thought of as a dynamic web query language - working > on demand. I don't hear anybody arguing to have no WITH/FROM equivalent. What will move us forward is a specific proposal for what they should look like on the wire. > I'm not stuck on the names WITH/FROM, or even the background/named > graph split. I'm happy with just a set of named graphs. > > Dave -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:18:25 UTC