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

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

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:05:25 +0000
Message-ID: <41B5F0E5.3040001@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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.

Well - no - the email was more with editor's hat off. I don't feel inclined to 
change the doc at the moment without a sense of direction from the WG because we 
had the (close) strawpoll at the F2F.

Also, it does not fully address the original comments so there is more 
discussion to be had.

It does not address matters raised about:
: the list syntax comment which I just can't get to work
: the PS about modifications to N3 which I can't get to even parse

(Dan - with your cwm hat on, could you help out here when you have got over the 
travel-induced backlog?)


> 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.
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 18:05:37 UTC

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