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

Re: [TF-PP] Possible starting points

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <a25ac1f0909290722jda0043ekfecaa3998f472cc0@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> 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.
> 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)

+1. Takes memory, but is not hard (I've implemented this in the past).

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

-1. Existing transitive algorithms don't work well with this. Plus
there are issues of syntax for binding the path-length variable.

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

-1. Same issues as for 3, only more so.

> 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. I'd at least like to see a "best" or "common" practice.

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC