From: Dan Brickley (danbri@w3.org)
Date: 08/28/01
[snip] I like this. It is (unless I'm mistaken) basically the same as the language broad-brush sketched in the W3C QL'98 position paper "Enabling Inference", http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/enabling.html (and implemented in Guha's RDFdb and Libby Miller's Inkling system as 'Squish'). It don't say this to complain, but rather to note that it's pretty much the simplest useful query language for RDF/D+O that's still useful. There are many other things one might want from an RDF query language, but there's also much to be gained from picking a simple simple subset to encourage implementors to ship code early. IMHO something like Squish fits the bill nicely. It's also the same idea expressed in a recent joke from Pat Hayes, that we could have a "Query Description Framework" through defining a format that pairs an RDF graph with, "...eh?". One claim from http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/enabling.html that might bear some discussion: [[ RDF Schema constructs such as subClassOf and subPropertyOf allow some simple inferences. In future, more complex rules will be expressible and more powerful inference engines will become possible. Ideally, the query language used by an inferencing system to access the knowledge base should be the same the query language the inferencing system responds to. To enable this, a query can take an additional parameter which specifies whether its answer should be based on either the "raw RDF graph" or on the deductive closure of the knowledge base. ]] --danbri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST