- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:45:21 +0100
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
FWIW, my simple query "language" implementation [1][2] is encoded in RDF (via N3). I'm not sure it is right for all purposes, but it served mine well enough. #g [1] http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/RDFForLittleLanguages.htm [2] http://www.ninebynine.org/Software/N3ReportGenerator.zip At 11:22 PM 5/31/02 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > >properties(@"x:spam") > >@"x:spam" - properties() -> * > >Another good reason for an RDF QL in RDF! > >Seriously though, I do think such a QL would be extremely useful, not only >because it would generally help interop. It would also mean that a whole >range of common expressions could become easier in RDF (without having to >drop into DAML-land), and also make things like XSLT-ish transformations a >lot more straightforward. Not unrelated to the interop point, the ability to >save sets of queries in a common format like RDF/XML has to be a plus - same >parser etc etc. > >Cheers, >Danny. ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 12:05:10 UTC