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

RE: FEATURE: SPARQLX

From: Orri Erling <erling@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:30:52 +0200
Message-Id: <200903311131.n2VBVre0031065@smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl>
To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:19 PM
To: RDF Data Access Working Group
Subject: FEATURE: SPARQLX

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX

There are two flavor of proposal on the table:

	The old SPARQLX proposal:
	
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/ 
0414.html
	An RDF based proposal:
	
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/ 
2009Mar/0010.html

I personally do not find an RDF/XML syntax to meet my requirements  
(since RDF/XML doesn't play that well with the XML toolchain), though  
an RDF based syntax may be desirable for other reasons.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Hi

The SPARQLX syntax seems preferable, it is just a transliteration of a parse
tree.  It can do the nesting that occurs in expressions and the like without
blank nodes, can keep arguments of functions in order without numbered
predicates or RDF lists and so on.  Plus XSLT  applies.  

Since this is really straightforward once there is a final syntax, this can
be a best practice and whoever needs it can make an XSLT sheet generating
SPARQL.  This does not per se have to  be in the rec.  It can be a non
normative reference in it and the whole syntax can be expressed in some
other document.


Orri
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 11:32:31 GMT

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