W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: XML Syntax

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:35:36 +0100
Message-Id: <000287DF-4462-44C5-B7CE-7FA0204922D5@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 Apr 2009, at 21:03, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
[snip]
> I am expecting it to capture the AST for a query and it would be  
> useful to more formally define the abstract syntax.

There has a been a lot of positive feedback from OWL implementors on  
the use of UML to define the abstract syntax...I'm not a huge fan,  
myself.

I do wish we had thought to scrap the bespoke Functional Syntax and  
instead define things in terms of a DOM/Infoset.

>  The grammar has both fine-grained and text-oriented detail as well  
> as the abstract syntax so driving the design from picking out key  
> grammar rules would be a good start IMHO.  The old design was for a  
> form of the language that was rather different to what it became.

Yes.

> There is an alternative which is to capture the algebra form in XML  
> serialization, rather than the syntax.  For machine processing, we  
> find the algebra easier to work with than the syntax.
>>

True. How do you find it for authoring?

One thing I would like to avoid is ending up with a fine grained  
derivation tree a la XQueryX. XQueryX serves a purpose, but I  
personally ran screaming from the room when I delved into it ;)

If I get a few, I'll try to sketch up some schema's for various designs.

Actually, I see no reason not to have XML syntax both for SPARQL  
queries and for sparql algebra expressions, following:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlQuery

Though I guess the latter is the biggest advance (since it covers a  
gap...there's no interoperable, to my knowledge, SPARQL algebra API/ 
exhange format).

[snip]
>> Manchester doesn't care one way or the other about a triply syntax. I
>> will note that the prior working group did reject a triple syntax
>> (based on N3) for SPARQL queries (though adopting Turtleishness for
>> BGPs).
>
> A different issue.  The N3-QL proposal was semantics as well.

Ok, cool.

>> I believe that the debate took place at a Boston F2F with TimBL
>> championing the triply syntax, but I was in other group meetings for
>> those bits, IIRC. Perhaps Andy or Steve recall more (Lee? were you
>> there?)?
>
> Not how it happened as I recall.  The N3-QL proposal was one of the  
> strawman proposals.  Well before Boston. The syntax did change at  
> Boston but from ()-triples to {}-patterns - both are text-oriented  
> forms.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item07

I think there was some conflation that I was getting between various  
aspects of it...

[snip]
> It was a long time ago,

Indeed.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 20:36:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT