- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:01:16 +0200
- To: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, al@jku.at, semantic-web@w3.org
Keith, yes, SPARQL CONSTRUCTXML would be very similar to XQuery, but
using an RDF graph matching instead of XPath expressions. That's where
FSL (Fresnel Selector Language) could come in.
I'd rather extend SPARQL than XQuery because the former already works
over the graph model, whereas XQuery has the XML tree as its data model
and the extension could get confusing. The situation is similar to
proposals where people put rdfpath (of any sort) into XSLT.
Jacek
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 14:52 +0100, Keith Alexander wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:18:02 +0100, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> > myself I was thinking about something like this in a SPARQL extension,
> > which might be easier to standardize than FSL:
> >
> > CONSTRUCTXML
> > <catalogue>
> > <product id="{?prodid}">
> > {CONSTRUCTXML
> > <part name="{?partname}"/>
> > WHERE { ?prodid hasPart ?partName }
> > }
> > </product>
> > </catalogue>
> > WHERE { ?prodid rdf:type Product }
> >
> > You see that it has to be recursive and that variable bindings have to
> > be passed into the recursion, but that's about all the complexity in
> > this extension.
> >
> >
>
> That looks like it could be pretty handy, kind of like XQuery ? - I wonder
> if you could have a slightly different syntax to allow templating into a
> broader range of formats than XML (eg: JSON)?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 14:01:22 UTC