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

Re: SPARQL syntax proposals

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:47:21 +0000
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050303234721.GB14262@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:51:13 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Tuesday, the DAWG f2f took up syntax issues. We came up with a
> syntax that was acceptable to all or most (don't know how SteveH would
> phrase his feelings) of the attendees. These are expressed as examples

I am much happier with this iteration of the N3-style syntax than the
previous ones, I feel its close enough to turtle that it wont create more
confusion than neccesary. Although, I feel that it still has readability
issues for people not familiar with N3/Turtle, the the .'s ,'s and ;'s
took me a lot of practice to visually parse.

...
> bNodes are interpreted as unique, unreferencable variables.
> SELECT ?who WHERE { ?who :brother [ in Army ], :mother [ in Navy] . }
> (same as            ?who :brother ?b. 
>                     ?b in Army.
>                     ?who :mother ?m.
>                     ?m in Navy              )

How about _:foo ? It seems like that should be allowed for symmetry,
letting people use bNode sugar, but not the longhand form would be odd.
Also, is "in" a typo? Should it be ":in" or something?

It was suggested that the N3 syntax be present in an appendix after the
decision to use SQISH/RDQL etc. style () syntax, so I hope whichever
syntax is not used will also be noted in an appendix for the same reasons,
after the vote on Tuesday.

Its obvious that whichever way the decision goes its going to annoy and/or
disenfranchise a lot of people, but I dont think theres anything that can
be done about that. I was trying to think of ways that you could
unambiguously use either syntax (not mixed in one query though) in SPARQL
expressions, but I couldn't come up with anything that seemed
acceptable. Multiple syntaxes are bad news anyway.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2005 23:47:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT