- From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:39:13 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: eric@w3.org, www-rdf-rules <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
I think Versa might be one of these 'single arc' types - see http://uche.ogbuji.net:8080/uche.ogbuji.net/tech/rdf/versa/versa.doc?xslt=/ftss/data/docbook_html1.xslt and especially http://uche.ogbuji.net:8080/uche.ogbuji.net/tech/rdf/versa/versa-by-example.txt Libby On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Dan Brickley wrote: > > Eric, > > I'm reviewing http://www.w3.org/2001/11/13-RDF-Query-Rules/ > > Rather than try to prepare a single detailed review, I'm sending > separate msgs on particular bits as and when I grab time to do this. If you'd > rather I tried to make a more unified review doc, I could do that. The > current approach seemed a quicker way to make gradual progress... > > > So first thing I wanted to ask about: > > Under "Goal Characteristics", you distinguish... > [[ > graph or arc > Some languages express a single arc, others an open subgraph. > No observed single arc languages support variables. This > leaves them unable to answer the specific query > represents(?x ?x) "What lawyers represent themselves?" but > instead the more general question represents(?x ?y) "What > lawyers represent anybody?". At this point, all single > arc query languages are outside the scope of this survey. > ]] > > This paragraph makes me curious. You rule discussion of these languages > out of scope, and don't cite any. Are they a theoretical rather than > actual possibility? In my experience 'single arc' functionality is only > exposed via RDF APIs, rather than textually represented query languages. > I don't know of any actual 'single arc' query syntaxes, though perhaps > some of the path-oriented efforts might fall under this heading? > > Your claim that "No observed single arc languages support variables" would > carry more oomph if you listed some observed single arc languages. Can you > give examples? Even if for the purposes of ruling them out of scope for > detailed analysis. If there aren't any, this is probably worth noting. > > Dan > > ps. you also have "some languages" in the first entry, and "some query engines" > in the second, under "Goal Characteristics". Are you comparing query > languages or software designs / implementations? (these have tended to be > 1:1 in recent history, I guess...). My assumption is that the focus here is > on language comparison. > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:40:44 UTC