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

Re: [TF-PP] Possible starting points

From: Olivier Corby <Olivier.Corby@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:43:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC2010D.7010702@sophia.inria.fr>
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 GMT

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