W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2001

Re: Scope

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:45:53 -0500
Message-ID: <014a01c16bbb$06431300$0400a8c0@GSC866>
To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Scope

> > Above all, what I would like to see is a common core query language so
> > tool sets can choose to provide the same basic query and application
> > programmers don't have to learn a new language for each tool set.  This
> > would also be good so queries can be shipped over SOAP to different RDF
> > stores.
> This is a great idea, and Dan Brickley already has some demos using Eric
> Prud'hommeax's Algae and also SquishQL servers, showing that
> SquishQL and Algae can more or less be mapped to each other. A common
> syntax would be very useful, but syntactic differences might be less
> significant if there is a common model of what a query is.

What would be the context of such an effort (finding a common query
language)? what capabilities would be assumed for the server? for example,
the KIF spec describes various conformance dimensions/categories (logical
form, term complxity, etc.) -- would a common query language seek to
encompass a variety of conformance profiles? or would it pick just a small
subset (or a single profile) and define the client/server interactions for


Geoff Chappell
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 15:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:14 UTC