- From: Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) <mbatsis@netsmart.gr>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:34:01 +0200
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, leo@gnowsis.com
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi,
>>A Query Language
>>================
>>RDQL, RQL ....
>>
>>all nice but a common lanugage should include :
>>- OUTER JOIN Queries, (optional matches)
>>- giving a "template" for a subgraph to be retrieved, f.e.
>>"give me triples that do: (?x rdf:type foaf:Person), (?x * *)"
>>
>>(these two things are in some projects, but not in all etc....)
Saying that a common language should include OUTER JOIN is irrelevant IMHO.
Actually, I agree with Leo (regarding an RDBMS dependent
implementation), but I would be happy to see discussions emphasize on
what the query language should be able to do behind the syntax or
implementation details and just focus on the model behind the queries
and their results.
One should be able to choose implementation-detail-dependent syntax as
well as the form of the query results, as long as the results represent
a graph in a form usable for one's requirements.
So, instead of cooking up a new syntax for a query language and disagree
on whether relational semantics belong in it (other stores exist!), why
not compare he capabilities of existing implementations, find out what
may be missing and come up with a document that specifies what the darn
language should be able to do against a store, where a store is nothing
but a graph or set of graphs.
Otherwise, I dont see why I shouldn't stick with SQL and higher level
persistence frameworks build on top of it.
Just my thoughts.
--
Manos Batsis
_ __ __ __
/ |/ /__ / /____ __ _ ___ _____/ /_
/ / -_) __(_-</ ' Y _ `/ __/ __/
/_/|_/\__/\__/___/_/_/_|_,_/_/ \__/
http://www.netsmart.gr
mbatsis at netsmart dot gr
(+30) 210 33 02 608
(+30) 210 33 02 658
http://forte.netsmart.gr/foaf/manos_foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 07:30:50 UTC