W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2006

RE: [BioRDF] RDF query languages

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:10:56 -0500
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000a01c642ca$e1cfb230$66741780@BIOXIAO>

> > Of course, the best bet would likely be to go with 
> SPARQL[1], the RDF 
> > Query Language defined by the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group 
> > (DAWG)[2].
> > The DAWG produces specifications for both the query language and a 
> > protocol to issue queries and receive results (either as an 
> RDF graph 
> > or as an XML representation of a result set).
> 
> +1
> 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/DawgShows additionally might be of 
> use to some interested in learning more about SPARQL.

+1.

I didn't know the XQuery in depth.  But my intuiation is that it must be
designed to query against the semantics of XML, which by specification only
specifies the semantics of document structure. But the same set of
information can be represented in multiple ways with RDF/XML.  Thus, any
attempt to derive the RDF semantics by querying the structure of a document
runs the risk of miss-"interpretation" or misinterpretation because the
required another level of indirection is not standardized.  GRDDL can work
because it is the same person who will authorize the HTML page and XSLT
transformation sheet.  The same cannot be said with any RDF document.
Design an RDF-aware application based on XQuery will not be portable to
other knowledge platform.  In addition, what if the RDF model is encoded in
language of non-RDF/XML, for instance the Notation-3 family?

My point is, as always, use the right tool to do the right thing.  Don't
heck unless there is no other way around.  

Xiaoshu
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 16:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:13 UTC