RE: why query languages and RDF data have syntaxes?

At 06:38 PM 12/2/02 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Graham, do you mean your query that works like RDF with blank bits?

To a point, yes.  That is, it matches the same graphs.  But I use variable 
bindings to extract values from a query, rather than take the matching 
subgraph, so in that respect I need more than just "blank bits".

>I presume
>it is easy to map between similar syntax types (squish and algae look the
>same to me) but is it easy to map from a "holey-RDF graph query to a
>SQL-style one?
>
>(You might be right about it being early to standardise, but it might be
>intersting to think about whether that is true and not assume it).

I'm not saying we shouldn't think about abstracting common 
elements.  Standardizing is a lot of work, and I think this is an area 
where energies may be more productively spent getting some stuff to work 
and trying out ideas.

#g
--



>cheers
>
>Chaals
>
>On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Libby Miller wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, I think it's too soon to be trying to eliminate diversity in
> >> ("standardize") RDF queries.  In practice, I think the various query
> >> approaches can be mapped reasonably easily, so I don't think different
> >> queries create unbridgeable islands.  My own query mechanism ends up
> >> reducing to an SQL-ish kind of approach.
> >
> >I'd agree with this Graham - there's a lot of similarity between
> >many of the languages. Dan Brickley had some conversion scripts between
> >squish and Algae for example (the nearest I can find is this:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/0071.html)
> >
> >Libby
> >
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
>SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
>  21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 
> 78 22
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 13:41:30 UTC