W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: variables prefix - ?variable vs. $variable

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:35:00 -0400
To: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040831133500.GB13148@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:07:53AM -0700, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I don't mean to be nasty, the asemantics guys are great!, but
> > these are all much worse than "?foo".
> 
> Pick another one then :) - pretty much all other chars are safe except for
> the surrounders, _ and % if you ignore languages and just consider DB
> interfaces.

I'm pretty strongly tied to "?foo". I hate hate hate to ignore or
flout conventions. 

> 	select id title
> 	from <dbms://localhost/rfid>
> 	where (id foo:id <urn:froefroe...
> 		..
> 	using foo ...
> 
> by simply insisting that any and all literals have a "" or '' , URI's
> always have a <> around them and anything else must use a : separator
> for the namepsace ?

Hmm, that's moderately better than most of the rest, I suppose. But
when I scan a query, I want the variables to stick out, and they don't
really stick out here.

> Also think of the upside; do this right and you can instantly allow ANY
> language/installation which has an ODBC, JDBC, ADO, whatever SQL interface
> do semantic web queries with virtually no rework on the client side.

I'm a bit skeptical of this generally, but especially since it doesn't
give any consideration (unless I'm mistaken) to our protocol, which
will certainly require some client changes, yeah?

>  AND
> you get at least some instant buy in from the people currently in control
> of data storage and the SQL bastion.

Yeah, Dirk, I acknowledge that this is a desideratum. Not sure it's
worth the cost, but it's more persuasive than avoiding buggy JDBC
implementations.

Best,
Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 13:37:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT