Re: A Comparison of RDF Query Languages

• Previous message: B: "$BJVEz$,L5$$$N$ODs<(3[$N(B$B$;$$$G$9$+!)(B50$BK|(B$B1_$J$i$$$$$N$G$7$g$&$+(B$B!)(B"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

<quote>
Related to the recent work of the RDF Data Access Working Group [1], we
have compared six proposals for RDF query languages.
<snip/>
[2] http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/
</quote>

Andreas,
interesting work; to this regard, you might also want not to skip W3C's
Metalog (cf. http://www.w3.org/RDF/Metalog ).

On the criteria in [2], obviously one might add many different
others as well. Given DAWG's scope, DB-like ops like joins etc might
profitably be included in the list. It would be also nice to express
those use cases in terms of abstract properties, rather than single
use cases: this will help better shaping the requirements document,
keeping a high level of abstraction and generality.

Bests,
-M

• Next message: Vassilis Christophides: "Re: [ontoweb-list] A Comparison of RDF Query Languages"
• Previous message: B: "$BJVEz$,L5$$$N$ODs<(3[$N(B$B$;$$$G$9$+!)(B50$BK|(B$B1_$J$i$$$$$N$G$7$g$&$+(B$B!)(B"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/30/04 EST