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

Re: Lee's feature proposal

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:22:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1fc9c2ff0905010722g781589eal36842bdc9d41f94a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote:
>>      * 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.

Indeed: we ranked it 2nd just behind the OWL issue.

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

Yes, it's one of those "hacks" that, if you don't notice it when you
google or no one tells you about it, you miss completely (assuming,
here, users who don't realize it directly).

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

C&P will join you here if that helps, re: championing. It's core to
our use case of generating integrity constraint SPARQL queries from
OWL ontologies directly, which is an important area of work that's
expanding OWL utility into areas like LOD, messaging, etc.

(Btw, all of this applies to assignment, too, for our integrity
constraint use cases.)

> 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.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 14:23:03 GMT

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