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

RE: Grammar for DAWG query language

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:05:11 -0500
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1096297511.24259.376.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 09:18, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> > From: Steve Harris <>
> > Date: 24 September 2004 12:02
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:43:19 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> > > I think I guess this is time to propose an alternative since the
> > > abutting of SOURCE ?src near a triple isn't working as far as
> clarity
> > > goes.  This is because that in
> > >    SOURCE ?src (?x ?y ?z)
> > > users are unsure if SOURCE ?src is part of the () following or
> > > previous.  One simple approach is to move the term in the triple:
> > > 
> > >    (?x ?y ?z SOURCE ?src)
> > 
> > I quite like that form, its clear what SOURCE refers too.
> 
> At the F2F we discussed whether SOURCE applied to a statement or to
> graph pattern.

Steve ntoed that SOURCE distributes over triples; i.e.

	SOURCE ?RECORD { meeting date ?WHEN. meeting chair ?WHO }
is the same query as
	SOURCE ?RECORD ( meeting date ?WHEN)
	SOURCE ?RECORD ( meeting chair ?WHO)

so I'm less sensitive to which way the syntax goes.


> We then have operators that compose blocks : SOURCE, OPTIONAL being what
> we have so far.  UNSAID and disjunction also can apply to blocks.

I'm pretty sure that trick doesn't work for
UNSAID (i.e. log:notIncludes). But the 
grammar of Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:41:00 +0100 doesn't
have UNSAID, so never mind, I guess.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 27 September 2004 15:04:06 GMT

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