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

Re: [TF-PP] Possible starting points

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:37:46 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67644BEC-261E-4259-A43F-57837664CFF5@garlik.com>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:12, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> This is a request for your views on starting points for the property  
> paths time permitting feature.
>
> Please send +1/0/-1 for the options (which aren't meant to be  
> mutually exclusive) or we might get telcon time.
>
> I've tried to list the main possibilities in terms of styles and  
> approach as starting points: all have variations and areas of  
> uncertainty (e.g. ordering of results).
>
> 1/ Property paths only mention IRIs or prefixed names.

+1

> The most conservative choice. Still need to relate to entailment.
>
> 2/ Property paths with variables and IRIs or prefixed names.
> (issues include restriction of what can be asked a la ?p* discussion)

0 - seems useful, but also very complex, maybe hard to implement

> 3/ With access to the length of the path matched
> Issues include how multiple paths between two nodes are handled (two  
> lengths possible).

-1 - much too complex

> 4/ With access to the path matched (path-valued variables is one  
> possibility)
> Issues as 3 + what is a path value "datatype".

-1 - much too complex

> For all of them: add an option to have
>
> 5/ A mechanism that will allow a variety of path matching schemes,  
> and provide one such system.
> Roughly, this would involve defining syntax so various different  
> approaches can at least use common syntax but choose from 1-4 as to  
> what the WG describes in this round of standardization and show the  
> relationship to the syntax. E.g having a PATH keyword idea in [1].

-1 - if there's that little agreement, then it's too early to  
standardise.

> 6/ Do nothing in this round - too early to standardise.

I think it's ok, as long as people don't want 5/ - my impression was  
that there was general agreement on how this should work.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:38:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT