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

RE: XML Syntax

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:08:08 +0000
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D0572306@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: 13 April 2009 21:36
> To: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: Re: XML Syntax
> 
[snip]

> > 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?

It's not used as much as a directly authored form - it's the programmatic building of a query that is best done in the algebra.  It's fine when you do use it like that, not that the ARQ-supported form is XML.  Do have to like writing a purely functional query form in prefix notation.

Personally, I find it just fine.

But XML syntax for the tool chain can be done as SPARQL query string -> parser -> XML form.  Writing the XML form of the AST is going to verbose in any design and a machine can easily do it for you.

Need to cover SPARQL/Update if the WG decides to work on that feature.



Try:

http://www.sparql.org/validator.html


and tick the algebra box.  I know you are not afraid of lots of (()).

[snip]

	Andy

Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 21:09:40 GMT

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