RE: Innovation, community and queries

>> >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.

Fair response, and no, as you probably guessed, I don't have a proposal at

>Of course, I must warn you I'm a sceptic.

Me too, which is partly why I have a knee-jerk reaction to new syntaxes.

>> 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),

Essentially the kind of stuff like that which SQL scores on (almost
irrespective of the relational model) - e.g. forall kind of things.

>> 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
>syntax as well.

Hmm - I've experimented in the RDF+XSLT area myself, but have serious doubts
on its potential - ok, it can probably solve a lot of specific problems, but
having to think in trees is a bit ugly for the general case.

>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.

Very true, but might it just be that with the DOM model doesn't need to be
good at metamodelling, which is something I would hope RDF languages would
be good at.

>> 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.

Writing a binding is trivial, writing a good binding is another matter.


Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 19:08:36 UTC