Re: comments on SPARQL Query Language for RDF

On May 31, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Bob MacGregor wrote:

> Kendall,
>
> With respect to quads, I agree with you.  But it took this  
> discourse with Richard, Pat, and Jeen to convince me
> that SPARQL has come about as far as triples will allow it.
>
> I still think that SPARQL ought to have a declarative semantics,  
> and I still think that UNBOUND should not
> be integral to the language, for the reasons described earlier.   
> Does something in the Charter preclude
> a declarative semantics?  I don't know the answer.

No, I don't believe so, and I hope it didn't sound otherwise from my  
comments. I only meant them in re: yr need for quads and claims about  
RDF's obsolescence.

Cheers,
Kendall

Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:00:04 UTC