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

Re: SPARQL / Language spec ready for review

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:15:07 -0500
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Dave Beckett <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>, Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1096683306.5269.311.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 19:48, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:06:04PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 11:28, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > > Dave, Steve, Howard,
> > > 
> > > The SPARQL language doc is ready for review in preparation for the telcon next 
> > > Tuesday.  Version v1.73 (or later) of:
> > > 
> > >      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
> > 
> > cool.
> > 
> > Hmm... the hello world example involves returning bNodes from the
> > query. Maybe that could be pushed to a later example?
> 
> Yeah, that's always a conundrum. The most socially interesting data
> is best modeled with bNodes and IFPs.
> 
> How volatile should we consider this? I.e. is it OK to change the
> exmaple if we come up with a better one?

Yes, if you're confident the change will be an improvement.
It's also OK for you to say "hmm... good idea, but I'm not
confident we can do it and do it well in this release."

> Also, do you have a better one?

I thought about it for 2 minutes and the best I came up
with is the title example a page or so down.

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

Received on Saturday, 2 October 2004 02:15:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT