- From: Matola,Tod <matola@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:44:50 -0500
- To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>
Hello Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:26 PM > To: Matola,Tod > Cc: 'Seth Russell'; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: RE: RDF IG meeting at W3C Technical Plenary 2001-02-28 > > [snip] > > And sometimes you'll prefer to > treat it as a tabular result-set a la JDBC/ODBC. In fact its possible > (though not necessarily wise -- discuss!) to overload the Java JDBC > machinery to talk to this kind of RDF query system. > I can see the motivation for this overload (it's out there, have a pattern to graft onto, we can see results quickly), but doesn't it build in the assumption of language, where as, sending back more RDF would free us from a particular language. I guess what I'm getting at is: if we think it is a good idea to encode the query in RDF, why not the resultset as well? I like the concept of the subQueries (subselects) though, I guess I have been thinking more along the line of intersecting the resultsets in a recursive way. Cheers Tod...
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 13:44:56 UTC