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

Re: Fwd: SPARQL: graph syntax should be N3 subset

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:54:24 -0600
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1102438464.5431.164.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 18:01 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
[...]
>  > - Allows one to create some example data, view it as N3, and then paste
>  > it into the 'construct' clause, replacing a few values with variables.
> 
> This is a compelling argument IMHO.  It suggests using N3-like syntax to capture 
> triple patterns.

Compelling...  that suggests you'll be updating the SPARQL spec to
use N3-like syntax for triple patterns.

Note the WG made a decision 30 Nov to adopt test cases that do _not_
use an N3-like syntax to capture triple patterns.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0394.html

so if you do make that design change, we'll need to reconsider that
decision.

Hmm... the "should be N3 subste" comment was made 29 Nov 2004
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Nov/0021.html

and since it takes time for comments to propagate, it's reasonable
to consider the comment new information since the 30 Nov decision.

On the other hand, we just made *another* decision today to adopt
4 more tests using the non-N3 syntax. As chair, I should have
led a discussion of this N3 syntax topic before putting that
question. oops.


[...]

> Summary: We can align syntax without creating dependences on things that don't 
> yet exist.

I'm inclined to treat that as a proposal to re-consider the decisions
we made about test cases with non-N3 syntax. At least, I consider
discussion of it in order; I'm not going to say "we already considered
that and decided it; move on" because while we did make a relevant
decision, I don't think we considered this input first.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 16:53:57 GMT

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