Re: RDF Query -- possible WG charter draft for discussion

Here are a few requirements that I would expect to see spelled out
explicitly in the charter, which were not so in the draft:

1. Support for comparison of typed literal values will be as unconstrained
   in the query language as they are in RDF -- making support for any
   given query executed against any given knowledge base dependent on
   support for any/all relevant datatypes specified. If a datatype
   specified in the query, or encountered in the kb is unknown to the
   query service, then no comparision can be made. Whether any form of
   warning is issued is up to the implementation.

   Note that adopting an approach by which queries are expressed *in* RDF
   (even if not in RDF/XML) automatically satisfies this requirement.

2. All implementations must support at least all of the pre-defined XML
   Schema simple datatypes.

3. Query results should be, by default, returned as RDF/XML, even if other
   forms of representation are made available by particular implementations.

4. No special knowledge about the internal organization or implementation of
   the knowledge base should be required to submit a general query (i.e.
   particular model/kb name, etc.).

Regards,

Patrick


On 2003-11-07 20:28, "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> In the years since W3C's QL'98 workshop on Query languages
> for the Web [1], there have been an increasing number of RDF
> query languages and implementations (hence this RDF IG mailing list).
> Many RDF-based applications use one or more of these languages
> to express queries against repositories of RDF data.
> 
> The W3C Team, with input from the Semantic Web Coordination Group,
> is currently drafting proposals for a 2nd phase of our
> Semantic Web Activity. One area of possible work we are considering
> is RDF Query. This list has been pretty active in discussing
> the details of RDF query, its relationship with RDF rules, XQuery etc.,
> as well as hosting practical interop collaboration, so we're
> circulating an early discussion draft for comments.
> 
> Did I mention yet that it is an *early* *draft*? For **discussion**?
> Nothing is set in stone. Specifically, we haven't proposed anything
> yet to W3C's Advisory Committee, and they've not approved anything.
> 
> The current draft is at [2]. EricP did most of the work on it. It will
> quite possibly change over the coming weeks, so please be sure to cite
> the $Revision number from the 'Status' section. The current version
> as I write this is 1.19.
> 
> Issues we are still discussing include the schedule, relationship to
> XQuery, OWL etc., and various other things flagged up in the document
> (CSS styled in Red at least in my browser). We are also interested
> in feedback regarding the extent to which mechanisms for remote access
> (ie. Web service interfaces; protocols) should be addressed
> by any standards-track Working Group we charter.
> 
> We would appreciate your comments by 20 November 2003, preferably to
> this (www-rdf-rules@w3.org) public, archived([3]) list. A separate
> discussion draft for work in the Rules area is also in preparation. The
> relationship between rules and query is an area we particularly
> welcome implementor feedback on. The thread earlier this week([4])
> was both interesting and helpful btw.
> 
> Thanks for your input!
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/10/RDF-Query-Charter
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Nov/0000.html
> --
> danbri@w3.org RDF Interest Group chair
> http://www.w3.org/people/danbri/
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 05:37:27 UTC