On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
Duncan Hull wrote on 03/06/2006 04:00:11 AM:
chris mungall wrote:
I think both approaches are a little too XML-centric; fine for a few
use cases but in general the syntax obscures the declarative
semantics of the mapping which must be kept as perspicuous as
possible. Why not just use an RDF query language?
Agreed. The thing with RDF is that there are so many query
languages to
choose from :)
http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/pha/rdf-query/
Of course, the best bet would likely be to go with SPARQL[1], the RDF
Query Language defined by the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group
(DAWG)[2].
The DAWG produces specifications for both the query language and a
protocol to issue queries and receive results (either as an RDF
graph or
as an XML representation of a result set).
+1
http://esw.w3.org/topic/DawgShows additionally might be of use to
some interested in learning more about SPARQL.
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
