- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:01:05 +0000
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >>> 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 I translated the queries from http://www.isb-sib.ch/~ejain/expasy4j-webng/query.html#examples into SPARQL: http://esw.w3.org/topic/LifeSciencesQueries/SPARQL Notes: - Example 4 uses COUNT which isn’t in SPARQL. - It appears that ex9 has no answers on the 10e6 triple 7.0a UniProt extract - Similarly, none of the queries have any results on the 1e6 triple 7.0a extract if I have prepared the data correctly. Andy
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:01:16 UTC