- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:57:55 +0200
- To: Ashley Yakeley <ashley@semantic.org>
- CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Ashley Yakeley wrote: > RQL and RDQL seem to be different solutions for the same problem, is > that correct? More or less, yes. Each has its own merits, so depending on your use one is preferable over the other. > How do they compare? RDQL is simpler than RQL, and less expressive. Yet it is expressive enough for many practical applications. Added advantage might be that its syntax is slightly more comprehensible than RQL's. The distinguishing feature of RQL would be that support for RDF Schema semantics is built in in the QL itself (in contrast to most other QLs including RDQL, which only assume a triple model). The advantage of this is that you can express very powerful queries, mixing data and schema information explicitly. Anyway, since Sesame supports both QLs, just give them both a swing and see which one you like best :) There is a tutorial for RQL on the Sesame demo site[1], and the Jena team[2] has an excellent tutorial available online for RDQL. Regards, Jeen [1] http://sesame.aidministrator.nl/ [2] http://www.hpl.hp.com/semweb/jena-top.html -- jeen.broekstra@aidministrator.nl aidministrator nederland bv - http://www.aidministrator.nl/ julianaplein 14b, 3817 cs amersfoort, the netherlands tel. +31-(0)33-4659987, fax. +31-(0)33-4659987
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 03:58:38 UTC