- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:13:51 +0100
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Telecon 3 Oct:
> """
> <bijan> AndyS, when I was reading rq24 I noticed that it seems like
> there has been introduced in a lot of the definition a sort of
> functional syntax for the algebraic operations. Is this right? Is
> it systmatic?
> """
>
> Not sure what you are referring to - trying to follow this up a day
> later, I've lost the context a bit. Could you pick an example from
> the doc? I haven't introduced ("added new stuff")
I didn't mean to suggest that there is substantial additions, only a
style one.
> any new material into definitions except where the WG has made
> changes. Or did you mean "introduce" as in "uses".
I just meant "I hadn't see this before" not "it's a content change".
> There is opt(A,B) in optionals - that has been there a while.
I just meant the use of things like opt(A,B), etc. I didn't recall
them from other drafts but I probably wasn't looking for them. I
*like* having them, in fact I was hoping to use them to hang stuff on.
> There is the use of S() because S is a function in a few place.
>
> It might be an idea to have more explicit functional definitions
> for the algebra. What do you (or anyone else) think?
Yes, this was my hope. I think it will help make things clearer and
easier to e.g., write theorems about (e.g., for communtivity, etc.).
Also it would make it easy for alternative syntaxes (e.g., XML) since
they can compile to the terser yet more explicit functional syntax
(e.g., it's nice to have a project *operator* rather than have it
implicit in the list of variables in the query form).
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 10:15:57 UTC