- From: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:43:57 +0200
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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
or a joker syntax that matches any property
+1
3/ With access to the length of the path matched
Issues include how multiple paths between two nodes are handled (two lengths possible).
+1
4/ With access to the path matched (path-valued variables is one possibility)
Issues as 3 + what is a path value "datatype".
+1
and a statement that enables to enumerate the path triples :
path ?path {?x ?p ?y}
+1
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].
Then
6/ Do nothing in this round - too early to standardise.
-1
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:44:36 UTC