W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2004

Re: DAWG charter (was: !)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:28:52 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: <massimo@w3.org>, <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>

At 12:12 04/01/08 -0500, massimo@w3.org wrote:

>I would like to add another argument to Dan's comments. It is clear, as
>everybody that has seen query systems around the world, in different
>fields, that there is a lot of common ground in the query word.
>In our case, there is some preliminary evidence that this common
>ground between XQuery and a possible-RDFquery-whatever-will-be-designed
>could be significative.
>Now the real question to ask is: how large is this overlap? Can we
>profitably fill the gap with reasonable effort, or this is not worth?
>Filling the gap with reasonable effort would be of course a plus
>for everbody, as it would:
>+ get closer the so-far rather distinct communities of XML and Semantic Web
>+ get the SW an increased momentum by this bridge
>+ get users with a more integrated sets of Web solutions, narrowing
>the number of languages one has to use
>+ promote delopyment and interoperability
>+ give reasonable comfort that W3C technologies are proceeding as far as
>possible united, and that there is overall technological consistency

There is one big area where I can see quite a lot of benefit:
RDF Query will mostly concentrate on the 'graph' aspect of things.
While exact matches on nodes are the simple case, there are quite
some interesting things you can do with more elaborate predicates
on a node, such as 'contains string', or whatever. Although not
part of XQuery 1.0, the XQuery WG is also working on fulltext
querying, which together with the graph capabilities of RDF
could turn out to be very interesting.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 12:40:05 UTC

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