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

Re: [JavaScriptFunctions] any WG implementations / advocacy?

From: Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:37:38 +0200
To: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090326113738.faa6745e@profium.com>
I would also vote for speccing the more crucial features first and if time permits, consider inclusion of this feature if there's sufficient implementation experience at that moment in time.

I am also in favor of making sure that we don't close the door for such extensions as we can see use cases for this alright.

Janne

> My vote is -1 even if Virtuoso will support extended JavaScript in
> version 7. (More correctly, Virtuoso/PL will be extended in such a way
> that it will become a superset of JavaScript.)
> 
> The reason is that we have no time to extend JavaScript spec with
> RDF-specific types and operators, including SPARQL invocation BTW. And
> even if we extend, the resulting language will require new runtime,
> blocking "two independent implementations".
> 
> What we can is 1) to note that there's a possibility in a distant
> future, so at least SPARQL syntax and keywords should not conflict with
> JavaScript, to make the future integration "peaceful" and 2) to mention
> some place like ESW wiki page as a placeholder for future proposals.
> Cheap and non-normative.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ivan.
> 
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 18:21 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > I was just taking a look at 
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:JavaScriptFunctions which was 
> > submitted on our -comments list by Holger Knublauch of TopQuadrant.
> > 
> > The gist, as I understand it, is asking implementations to dereference 
> > URIs of unknown FILTER functions to retrieve RDF descriptions that 
> > contain JavaScript implementations of the functions.
> > 
> > I think this is pretty cool, myself, but it also seems very new, a very 
> > high burden for implementors, and potentially fraught with security 
> > concerns that I haven't thought of yet.
> > 
> > I'd like to know if there are any other implementations of this feature 
> > (which, to generalize a bit, I'd call a mechanism for interoperably 
> > resolving unknown SPARQL functions) and also if there are any Working 
> > Group members who care to advocate in favor of the group producing a 
> > specification for this feature.
> > 
> > Lee
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Janne Saarela 
Profium, Lars Sonckin kaari 12, 02600 Espoo, Finland
Tel. +358 (0)9 855 98 000 Fax. +358 (0)9 855 98 002
Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 09:38:23 GMT

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