danbri: Feel free to hack about...
DanC: very, very cool!
DanC: the WebAPI is nice and straightforward.
DanC: sounds like stuff sandro has been noodling on.
DanC: umm... RDQL... what do they mean by that?
DanC: hmm.. Sep 2001 RDQL ann
danbri: RDQL - its a cleanup (bnf etc) and extension (filters etc) of what libby had as squish, which in turn cleaned up (more readable via namespaces) and extended (not sure differences) Guha's RDFdb QL, which was based on the Enabling Inference QL'98 paper which Guha wrote most of.
DanC: ah... RDQL
danbri: I prefer the name Squish, partly cos I prefer names over acronames, partly because it evokes a vague image of messy merging, but mostly because its sounds funny and is a nice opener on the 'what is it to be SQL-ish' debate.
libby: squish and rdql aren't the same, mind you...
danbri: Yup...
danbri: I'm interested to see how these languages integrate datatype-based query...
DanC: the WebAPI is nice and straightforward.
DanC: sounds like stuff sandro has been noodling on.
DanC: umm... RDQL... what do they mean by that?
DanC: hmm.. Sep 2001 RDQL ann
danbri: RDQL - its a cleanup (bnf etc) and extension (filters etc) of what libby had as squish, which in turn cleaned up (more readable via namespaces) and extended (not sure differences) Guha's RDFdb QL, which was based on the Enabling Inference QL'98 paper which Guha wrote most of.
DanC: ah... RDQL
danbri: I prefer the name Squish, partly cos I prefer names over acronames, partly because it evokes a vague image of messy merging, but mostly because its sounds funny and is a nice opener on the 'what is it to be SQL-ish' debate.
libby: squish and rdql aren't the same, mind you...
danbri: Yup...
danbri: I'm interested to see how these languages integrate datatype-based query...
dajobe: eek, she's quoting rdf core issue resolutions
DanC: by Roger L. Costello January 24, 2003
DanC: posted to xml-schema-dev
DanC: at a glance, looks like an interesting, though not very thorough, angle on the schema annotation problem.
sandro_: down at the bottom: "Ideally, we probably should use RDF. However, RDF is a less well understood by the XML community, and there is less support for it in terms of tools. So, the above approach is an interim solution."
DanC: posted to xml-schema-dev
DanC: at a glance, looks like an interesting, though not very thorough, angle on the schema annotation problem.
sandro_: down at the bottom: "Ideally, we probably should use RDF. However, RDF is a less well understood by the XML community, and there is less support for it in terms of tools. So, the above approach is an interim solution."
dajobe-lap: RDF Concepts
dajobe-lap: RDF Semantics
dajobe-lap: RDF Primer
dajobe-lap: RDF Vocabulary Description Language (aka RDF schema)
dajobe-lap: RDF/XML Syntax
dajobe-lap: RDF Testcases
dajobe-lap: something to read over the weekend ;)
dajobe-lap: and a note: LBase: Semantics for Languages of the Semantic Web
ericm: congradulations rdfcore working group on a job well done!
dajobe-lap: RDF Semantics
dajobe-lap: RDF Primer
dajobe-lap: RDF Vocabulary Description Language (aka RDF schema)
dajobe-lap: RDF/XML Syntax
dajobe-lap: RDF Testcases
dajobe-lap: something to read over the weekend ;)
dajobe-lap: and a note: LBase: Semantics for Languages of the Semantic Web
ericm: congradulations rdfcore working group on a job well done!