- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:28:38 -0600
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 16:27 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > Minutes of RDF DAWG telecon 2005-02-15 for review Thanks for getting these out promptly. A correction... > Discussion of constraints expressed as triples vs them in AND clause. > Some things may not be (so easily) expressed as triples compared to > them in the expression language. Experience here from n3. The > examples in 0127 had literals as subjects so weren't good for sparql > as defined now. Alberto presented some ical/RDF-cal examples using > contraints into triple-patterns (e.g. dates comparinsons) at > http://demo.asemantics.com/zparqler/examples/example8.html > > PREFIX ical: <http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#> > SELECT ?uri ?summary ?dtstart > FROM <rdfstore://localhost:1234/xannouncements> > WHERE > (?uri ical:summary ?summary) > (?uri ical:dtstart ?dtstart) > (?dtstart op:dateTime-greater-than "2000-06-00T00:00:00A") > > Two problems here - literal subjects and "2000-06-00T00:00:00A" isn't > a xsd:dateTime literal. > > Discussion of the set of predicates that sparql engines must > understand - the op:* above. EricP reports that the current rq23 draft > does not require recognising this. Alberto and DaveB remembered this > being present once but it was removed by AndyS [for reasons the > scribe lost track of in the discussion - interoperability?]. > > ACTION JosD: Make 2 test cases over the same data using the > op:dateTime predicate and without using it. I think it was the other way around: ACTION JosD: make 2 test cases using the same query but with different data: one without an op:dateTime triple in the input, and one with. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 18:29:32 UTC