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

Re: SPARQL 2004-10-12 syntax and grammar issues

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:14:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4190989D.60400@hp.com>
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:50:36PM -0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0199.html
>>
>>>waiting for the editors to announce if there are any document changes.
>>>I don't actually see any decision in the last telcon minutes
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0210.html
>>
>>All three.  Or just # (c.f. common in scripting languages).
> 
> 
> +1 for just #

If you are happy with that, I propose just "#" for comments.

In the telecon I thought you were making the case for /**/ comments.

> 
> 
>>>ISSUE: Commas or no commas
>>>I've already seen user confusion when they tried to use ','s inside
>>>WHERE (s, p, o) and omitting them outside with SELECT ?x ?y.  I've
>>>mentioned this many times as likely to happen.  It's hard to remember.
>>
>>And I have replied on IRC and elsewhere.  You don't like the approach of
>>allowing different styles of writing; I see that the effect is so small
>>on the implementer (and is done in RDLQ) as to not justify picking one.
>>Syntax is a value judgement - see other DAWG syntax issues.
> 
> 
> My (admittedly small) experience is that having multiple syntax choices
> makes it hard for beginners. I usually write RDQL in fully verbose mode
> (a, b, c), (a, b, d) etc. and users who started with my examples tend to
> get a bit stumped when they see the compact form.
> 
> 
>>>ISSUE: OPTIONAL or []s
>>>I've asked several times to pick just one of these.  The WG looked
>>>favourably at F2F on a syntax containing the latter only.  This
>>>is related to the more general need for a grouping construct - not
>>>needed at all if nested optionals are ditched.
>>
>>This is slipping into language design by syntax: I think that rejecting
>>a feature (nested optionals) based purely on a minor syntax issue is a
>>very bad basis for a decision.
> 
> 
> We still need a grouping construct if OR is allowed. I'm not sure that the
> syntax is that minor an issue, though I agree that the expressivity -
> complexity should have priority.
> 
> - Steve
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:15:04 GMT

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