- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:41:53 -0600
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
- cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Patrick Stickler'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> >properties(@"x:spam") > >@"x:spam" - properties() -> * > > Another good reason for an RDF QL in RDF! Possibly. It's hard to judge without seeing your proposal for expressing it in RDF instead. Of course, I must warn you I'm a sceptic. > 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), Examples? > and also make things like XSLT-ish transformations a > lot more straightforward. We do this in 4Suite by using Versa to query and using XSLT itself to generate transformed RDF/XML. Works well, but we plan to come up with an XUpdate-like syntax as well. I'm not sure how Query in RDF would help make this more palatable than me. After all, the analog of RDF query in XSLT, XPath, is not in XML syntax. It still works quite well. > 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. This is a trivial matter of writing an RDF binding for whatever data model a QL uses. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/ DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html The Languages of the Semantic Web - http://www.newarchitectmag.com/documents/s=2453/new1020218556549/index.html XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 17:57:17 UTC