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

RE: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:25:48 +0000
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3694058EE48@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: b.glimm@googlemail.com [mailto:b.glimm@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Birte Glimm
> Sent: 29 October 2009 23:36
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs
> 
> [snip]
> >> I would like to suggest alternative syntaxes for BGPs
> >
> > We already have a time-permitting feature on query language syntax.
> Hm, but that is to change existing SPARQL syntax whereas this is about
> using a completely different syntax in BGPs but one for which there is
> a straight mapping into the SPARQL syntax.

The area is undefined but some are different ways to wring the same thing - which is what this is as well.

> 
> [snip]
...

> > Viewing this as one possible DSL on top of SPARQL, and so should be handled
> by the tools is, I think, the best place for it and it can be developed
> outside the WG by various communities.  There might well be different
> syntaxes for different tools clusters (e.g. rules).
> 
> What's DSL?

"Domain Specific Language"

> It might be a W3C note, but I am not sure what the requirements on
> this are. As also Kendall says, triple syntax for OWL constructs can
> be awkward and at least OWL users and tool developers will probably
> want more OWL support (either as a layer around SPARQL or directly
> within SPARQL).

It would be nice to see a member submission so that it’s the users and tool makers defining this.
 
	Andy

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 11:27:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT