- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:40:39 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 07:55 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > On 10 Jun 2006, at 20:35, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >> Strictly speaking, commas may be unnecessary since SELECT ?a ?b + ?c > >> can be parsed. > > > > Unbracketed expressions would need commas to know when they end and > > a new one start. Given we are in CR, mandatory commas would be a > > significant change. > > Is that a huge setback? I'm not sure of the process implications. I was thinking out loud about this sort of thing with EricP... I expect that we'll make a number of changes of this magnitude during CR. We'll update the test cases to match, and make sure several implementations pass the corresponding tests. (Has anybody started tracking which implementations pass which tests?) While these changes aren't huge, they are substantive in that they require people to change their code. So another last call will be in order. Say 3 to 4 to 6 weeks. Then (presuming the XQuery dependency and such are satisfied...) we should have enough materials for a successful request for PR; I don't think we need another CR for things like where the commas go. That's my suggestion. I wonder if it makes sense to anybody else... Kendall? > Given that the commas-in-triple-patterns consistency problem is gone > is seems a bit unfortunate to stick with a decision that results from > that. > > > I hope I've shown that expressions in SELECT are possible. > > You have, but not that it's particularly pleasant syntax. I'm also inclined to add the commas in the SELECT syntax. I personally type it that way all the time. That in itself isn't new information... I'm not sure if the future consideration of expressions in select is new information or not... but then there's the addition of ORDER BY to the language... none of those by themselves was enough to get us to reconsider, but putting them altogether looks like a pretty good case, to me. Making them optional would be friendly to existing code and queries, though it's kinda gross. I don't have a strong opinion in any direction. > - Steve -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 18:40:49 UTC