- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:46:04 +0100
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> Hi Nathan, >> >>> Still remain unconvinced by projections... >> >> Yes...I realise that most people aren't convinced. :( >> >> Yet what surprises me on the issue is that SPARQL is probably the most >> common form of querying RDF, and people almost always use the >> projection form of queries when using SPARQL: >> >> SELECT ?name ?homepage ... >> >> There must be some reason why people favour this technique over >> obtaining a ton of triples and working through each one, or using the >> CONSTRUCT form? >> >> >>> ...yet realise they do provide a >>> workable approach, and given the aforementioned keep the rest >>> workable too - >>> i.e. could work with that :) >> >> In which I am inspired to keep chipping away at the 'unconvinced'. ;) > [snip previously reply] Sorry, i completely conflated that example by expanding it! given a SPARQL of: SELECT ?name WHERE { <http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me> foaf:name ?name . } one can get that same name from RDFa API with store.filter("http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me", "foaf:name" , null ); and I'm suggesting we could get to DOM Node by adding the same filter method to the document and return nodes, in addition to the store which returns triples. document.getElementsByFilter("http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me", "foaf:name" , null ); Different issue to the one you discuss (i think) yet it crosses paths because it too aims to decouple the node's from the triple/value whilst still allowing you to get to them simply. All the other benefits of projections I completely follow and certainly it's worth having (imho) - that I am convinced of, whether it's the best or only approach to linking between some RDF s/p/o values and the source nodes I'm unsure :) Best, Nathan
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 14:47:30 UTC