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

RE: Scope

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:26:51 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F24E5BB@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Geoff Chappell'" <geoff@sover.net>, "Libby Miller (E-mail)" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-rdf-rules@w3.org'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

The style I would suggest is one of many small steps - trying to get a
regular flow of useful output, both so that everyone is informed and to let
implementers try out the ideas.  We could start with requirements gathering
and use case examples.  This would also draw on previous and related work.

As to the scope of the work, it is what the people involved make of it.  I
would like to see a framework in which query capabilities fit - not a single
set of funconality that every system must implement to be conformant.  I'd
prefer to be able to cover a range, from access to small models on a
low-powered device, through to client/server usage.  That means I don't see
it as a matter of defining the whole of client/server interactions,
including SOAP bindings etc etc - I see it as concentrating on the
query/data access part of that and have separate proposals for various
usages arise.


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Chappell [mailto:geoff@sover.net]
Sent: 12 November 2001 20:46
To: Libby Miller; Seaborne, Andy
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Subject: Re: Scope

----- 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 Wednesday, 14 November 2001 08:29:46 UTC

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