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

RE: Scope

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 06:23:00 -0500
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Libby Miller \(E-mail\)" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Seaborne, Andy
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:59 AM
> To: 'Geoff Chappell'; Libby Miller (E-mail)
> Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Scope
> Geoff,
> I think you have touched on a significant point about the query
> abilities of
> different systems.  I was thinking that defining a level of operations
> around query, not assert or retract, is the more useful.
> To me, it is better to have something simple "soon" because it helps
> application developers.  One way of starting might be to get some
> short use
> cases.  This helps us all get on the same page.
> I'm with you on the interchange format, rather than a single
> syntax.  I can
> see that different syntaxes for the same language can be useful for
> different application domains.  An RDF/XML syntax might not be the most
> readable :-) but is good for a SOAP service.

Any work that could be reused here? could, for example, ruleml be used to
specify a query? i.e. by specifiying a rule that implied the query result?
or some other existing format that's suitable? it would be nice to avoid
re-inventing something...

> 	Andy

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 07:59:50 UTC

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