- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 10:44:45 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: eric@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com Subject: Re: definitions of queries vs. rules Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:49:17 +0100 > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > I worry that there are things in queries that should not be in rules. > > Consider DB query systems like (gasp) SQL. Do we want all the baggage of > > something like SQL in the antecedants of rules? Do we even want everything > > in a cleaner rule algebra in the antecedants of rules? > > Peter, do you have an example of such a clean rule algebra? Not offhand, at least not an implemented one. (Ask a DB person.) However the initial query explorations in relational DB theory resulted in two different query formalisms (relational calculus and relational algebra). I view both of these formalisms as clean, and uncluttered, at least in their initial form. Some of the clutter was added later, with such things as grouping. Note that I am not directly arguing that an RDF (or DAML+OIL) query language include all the constructs of even the standard relational algebra, even if these were all to make sense for RDF (or DAML+OIL). peter
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2001 10:45:47 UTC