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

RE: Agenda 2009-06-16

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:48:44 +0000
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646CFC6689@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
> a) If we can find consensus, I would like to decide on publishing
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ as FPWD.
> Particularly, if you CAN'T participate tomorrow and want to raise
> concerns, please send them, if any possible before the Teleconf.

What's the status on these comments I've extract below:
Key ones are:

  Non-mention of the time-permitting in F&R.[*]
  Negation is not syntax

For comments not going into the FPWD doc, could you indicate why, please.


[*] "View source" does not count.


2.2.2 but generally comment:

That feature could be used, for instance, in the following use cases:
Not sure "could be used" is helpful without spelling out how it would be done, but that gets into far too much detail. Maybe just stick to the basic point.  
2.3: Negation.

"Hence, a new syntax is desired."

The discussions so far have not been able just syntax.  The text implies to me that it is just syntax for writing OPTION/!BOUND.

The example of MINUS might be taken to imply that is the likely direction of the WG because it's the only example.

(mentioning SQL EXISTS has been done).


"though that might be unparseable or something along the lines of"
Drifting into discussion?

The reply was: Kjetil:
> Yeah, I don't like this myself. We should also have a review to ensure that we 
> only have existing implementations here, and it this sounds like speculation.


Will the time-permitting features at least be mentioned?  Especially SPARQL/OWL.
They don't need as much justification (IMO) - indeed for this publication, just placeholder structure is enough but something should go in.

Reply: Alex:
> We've commented them from the TOC / Structure as we didn't have time  
> to properly define it for the FPWD.
> Yet, I just added the list of complete features in the introduction,  
> which lists all of them.

I still think should list them even if that means empty sections.  It's about being complete to the community (the inline link to FeatureProposal does not count).

== 2.4.2 Project expressions / Descriptions

Use and example from XQuery/XPath F&O (e.g. fn:substring and strings are zero-based) to indicate we will reuse where possible. 
== 2.4.3 Project expressions / Existing implementation

This is also useful in CONSTRUCT:

 CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name (concat(?fn, " ", ?sn)) . }
 WHERE { ?x foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . }
This is not a project expression!

Just keep the section clean and don't discuss CONSTRUCT.  Just need a direct discussion of project expressions.

And new one:
CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ?name }
   (SELECT concat(?fn, " ", ?sn) AS ?name
    WHERE { foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . })

Suggest change (SELECT ) to {SELECT } as two implementations already do that.

Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 16:50:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:56 UTC