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


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:41:51 +0100
Message-Id: <5B4EF640-D2E0-4A9C-8586-1D75DDAB0EA9@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>
On 31 Mar 2009, at 12:30, Orri Erling wrote:
> 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.

The main thing is to provide a Schema and a Namspace. The Schema  
should provide useful types so that one can construct schema aware  

I'm happy with this being in a separate document. Is there any  
problem making it a rec track document?

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 11:38:06 UTC

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