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.

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

Hmm... the "should be N3 subste" comment was made 29 Nov 2004

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC