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

RE: Lee's feature proposal

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:24:08 +0000
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D13291D3@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
I am reasonable comfortable with the list except that explanation of not including "negation" does not make sense to me.

>      * Aggregate functions
>      * Subqueries
>      * Update
>      * Project expressions
>      * Service description


>      * Negation. The survey indicated strong support for providing a
> simpler form of asking negative queries than the current OPTIONAL/!bound
> construct. I've excluded this from my proposal under the hope that the
> design for subqueries may obviate the need for this feature.

I am surprised.

It comes out well on the WBS.

It has user exposure via OPTIONAL!BOUND and that experience is that the current way is hard to use. 

This is a feature I have said I will champion as noted on the wiki (as per below).

We are deciding a feature list, not an implementation list. It may well be a subquery, so I suggest including it in subqueries, but not putting on either list based in part on that does not make sense to me. 
> 
> Time-permitting Features
> 
> (Roughly in this order.)

I am surprised at prioritisation.  The survey captures WG members sense of priorities by the ranking.  See also below.

> 
>      * SPARQL/OWL
>      * Property paths
>      * Function library
>      * Basic federated query
>      * Surface syntax



>      * group preference
>      * group energy
>      * implementation experience
>      * utility to developers
>      * utility to end users
>      * extensibility
>      * conservatism

> And in the personage of Bijan Parsia, the
> SPARQL WG has the expertise and energy necessary to properly specify the
> SPARQL/OWL basic graph pattern matching extension. SPARQL/OWL received
> minimal support in the survey, but seemed to have a somewhat warmer
> reception in the discussion on the April 28 teleconference.

In my opinion, one of the important aspects of a working group is that the group as a whole devotes time to the consideration of a feature, review of material and preparation of the final concrete deliverables.  Having someone to put energy into a feature is only one side of the equation.

There was no strawpoll the second time.

Other people said they would champion other features.

(This is not directed at Bijan whose energy in this WG I appreciate)

	Andy
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 13:25:54 GMT

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