- From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:53:01 -0000
- To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>
In the draft charter, there is an architectural point which I'd like to support. The emphasis on the pattern matching aspect of query is very significant because such a pattern matching building block can be used to have single subgraph match, bound variable results and should also fit with rule antecedents. I hope that the requirements phase would have significant input from the rules community in terms of expressiveness and the (query) processing model to ensure shared concepts and syntax. The discussion on XPath mixes the idea of the XPath component in the overall architecture and the specific syntax of XPath as a query language. The abstract part is a good architectural building block. The WG should use the requirements to justify any syntactic similarities as there may be little to gain in shared tools at this level if the input is an RDF graph and the output is an graph RDF. The need I see is a common access mechanism for access to RDF graphs (large and small) where information consumer and information producer are in different organisations across the web so likely to be using different toolkits. Establishing a basic common language is an important role for a recommendation from W3C. Therefore, I'd like to see the WG chartered to produce a "remote access language" (to change the name) and protocol should not be out of scope, nor should concrete syntax. This may limit the range of the full query as an access language needs to be generally useful, not a complete local query processing environment - the requirements phase should test this. The concrete syntax(es) - for HTTP and XMLP - need not be very human-readable. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 11:53:17 UTC