W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: bNodes and properties (was: Re: evaluating SPARQL w.r.t an RDF query language survey)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:20:08 -0400
Message-Id: <332287f4e424061a8279d62ea560a9dd@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, andy.seaborne@hp.com, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

On Apr 12, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> I think I tend to come down on the side of folks who want to keep 
> aligned with the actual turtle language. I'd like the principle to be 
> the minimal set of necessary deviations, obviously marked. As it 
> stands, I think dan's fails that test. It adds no new capability; it 
> deviates; it's not obvious (to me at least; I always fine []s 
> surprising in N3, no matter where they occur).

Prompted by a query from someone, it occurred to me that alignment with 
data might not be a compelling argument, given the non standardness of 
turtle. To alleviate that, we could make a turtle recommendation, but 
then we have created an alternative exchange syntax for RDF!! Surely 
*that* is out of scope and inappropriate.

Hmm. This worries me more than it perhaps should. If I go down this 
path it seems a compelling argument *against* using turtle or 
turtlesque syntax in sparql. At least very strongly. I was in a 
conflicting meeting at the F2F when this was discussed so I don't know 
how this argument played out.

I'll note that I've never heard this as a feature request from any of 
the people I know who use RDQL or other RDF query languages. I might 
expect LC negative comments.

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC