W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: query your API

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:02:30 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
CC: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Message-ID: <CCEB627F.C541%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello eric.

On 2012-12-10 08:47 , "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>Defining in terms of SPARQL doesn't demand implementation with SPARQL.
>Also, it's easy for people to experiment with and understand SPARQL by
>grabbing any of a number of free tools.

you're just shifting things around here. of course there doesn't need to
run a SPARQL engine underneath every implementation, but if our query
language is close in complexity to SPARQL, then service implementers
without native SPARQL back-ends will have to implement the mapping, and
will get close to having to implement SPARQL. which we probably don't want
to place as a burden on every LDP implementation.

>This makes it a bit more approachable than other formal definitions (e.g.
>the definition of a "parent/child" selection in XPath
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/#jd_uioi>, to take an entertaining
>extreme.)

all depends on where you're coming from. it should be approachable for as
many people as possible, and not just people with a five-year background
in [SPARQL|XQuery].

>Of course, it may be that the definitions would use so little of SPARQL
>as to make the reference pointless, but we should at least treat SPARQL
>definitions as plan A.

my suggestion would be to try really hard to avoid SPARQL being a
normative reference. illustrative in the implementation guide: yes.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 18:03:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:26 UTC