W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: [Fwd: major technical: no subqueries]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:07:31 +0000
Message-ID: <43C79803.2040501@hp.com>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
> On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:21 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
>> This seems like a reasonably coherent argument for a new requirement,
>> complete with rationale and use case.
>>
>> If you support this requirement and would like to see us add it
>> to the critical path, please say so.
> 
> I wanted subqueries in SPARQL since the beginning. However, I fear  
> that if we took this requirement on right now, SPARQL would die. So  
> I'm for this being a major priority in SPARQL version 2, if there's  
> going to be such a thing.
> 
>> If not, please help me come up with justification that might
>> satisfy the commentor.
> 
> The best one I can think of: doing it *now* may kill the whole thing  
> dead.

I agree - let's wrap up what we have, and ship it.  We have a number of 
related postponed issues including #cascadedQueries and #countAggregate.  All 
these features would be good so the choice is going with the lesser and 
current v1 with the full expectation that a v2 will be needed, as against 
waiting until all features have been addressed.  I believe we have a design 
that does not exclude the possibility (the syntax being the easier bit).

> Cheers,
> Kendall Clark

	Andy
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 12:07:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT