hi jim,
> Prof Mazzochi sounds 'way off' ;-) ,
well, so be it ;)
i just thought that something like this could address michaels idea
of the bi-directional references.
Absolutely - the example was fine, I was just concerned about Stephano being
allowed to 'officially' mess with students'minds :-)
> but thats how I've seen references - as the way to encode RDF. I forget
how
> far we backed off in the final spec, but the idea of including a
"following'
> clause in the query language was a way to let you query along graphs.
agreed. with respect to query languages we certainly have the liberty
to extend beyond the spec in jackrabbit. but maybe jcr:deref() is what
you were looking for.
I think that's where consensus led us - jcr:deref allows you to 'manually'
traverse references to find things. The 'following' clause in the query
language was intended to let you substitute named reference relationships in
for the parent/child relationship in search, so one could formulate a query
along the lines of "find all works where creator = bob that are 'derived
from' /a/b/c" where 'derived from' would be a reference property and you'd
want to recursively dereference nodes linked by 'derived by' looking for
those created by Bob. While useful, there were/are valid concerns about this
being 'expensive', 'following' being nonstandard, etc. so it was pulled out
with the possibility that it could be added back in an alternate query
language.
Jim
> I don't think there's as clean a way to deal with all of RDF (e.g.
reification
> (statements about statements), anonymous nodes), but I think references
> could work reasonably well for general triples.
sounds reasonable to me....
regards,
david
