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

Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:52:36 +0000
Message-Id: <6CFA9F4B-88F1-4912-A8D0-A2D4580982D5@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
On 30 Oct 2009, at 12:30, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b.glimm@googlemail.com [mailto:b.glimm@googlemail.com] On  
>> Behalf Of
>> Birte Glimm
>> Sent: 30 October 2009 12:00
>> To: Kendall Clark
>> Cc: Seaborne, Andy; SPARQL Working Group
>> Subject: Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs
>>
>>>> It would be nice to see a member submission so that itís the  
>>>> users and
>>>> tool makers defining this.
>>>
>>> So I guess you didn't see me say we're doing this in a upcoming  
>>> version of
>>> Pellet, which is a relevant tool with users who've requested this  
>>> sort of
>>> thing.
>>
>> That would apply to HermiT as well, so in that sense I do speak as
>> tool developer too and I can't see our users happily learning triple
>> syntax. Functional Style & Manchester syntax are quite popular.
>
> I quite agree it's a better syntax.
>
> I just though that having the users and tool developers (yes  
> Kendall, I had seen your message) co-submit, including all the  
> details, test cases, etc, would be more effective for you than a  
> note by some people in this WG.

After all, if the submission is robust enough, we could always pick  
it up and fast track it (or a subsequent group can). I guess, Andy,  
that you're pointing out that doing this in group at this point runs  
some risks even if it only adds a small amount of admin overhead  
(given the group resource constraints).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 12:47:30 GMT

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