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 14:55:31 +0000
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3694058EF5F@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 30 October 2009 13:58
> To: Bijan Parsia
> Cc: Seaborne, Andy; Birte Glimm; SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs
> 
> > On 30 Oct 2009, at 12:30, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: b.glimm@googlemail.com [mailto:b.glimm@googlemail.com] On =20
> > >> 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 it=92s the =20
> > >>>> users and
> > >>>> tool makers defining this.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I guess you didn't see me say we're doing this in a upcoming =20
> > >>> version of
> > >>> Pellet, which is a relevant tool with users who've requested this =20=
> >
> > >>> 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 =20
> > > Kendall, I had seen your message) co-submit, including all the =20
> > > details, test cases, etc, would be more effective for you than a =20
> > > note by some people in this WG.
> >
> > After all, if the submission is robust enough, we could always pick =20
> > it up and fast track it (or a subsequent group can). I guess, Andy, =20
> > that you're pointing out that doing this in group at this point runs =20
> > some risks even if it only adds a small amount of admin overhead =20
> > (given the group resource constraints).

To Bijan:

Yes.  Adding time-permitting work in one place has a knock effect.  A submission can involve other (more) people.

Last time, the end-stage processes (e.g. test materials together, compliance recording) did all add up even if no one item seemed to be too large on it's own.

> Perhaps it's already clear, but in case anyone doesn't know, the Member
> Submission process is only for work that is outside the scope of any
> working group [1].  I guess the thinking here is that it will be
> determined later ("time permitting") whether or not it's in scope.  In
> that case, I suppose a Member Submission would be okay, but it stikes me
> as rather heavyweight.

We have a fairly tightly defined charter now, based around the F&R document.  My suggestion of putting it with "Query language syntax" (although the F&R doc does list the assumed syntax features) was the closest I could see but that was not acceptable.  A Member Submission was then the closest I could think of for a new time-permitting feature.

Sandro: Would an interest group note would possible?

	Andy

> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/submission#SubmissionScope

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 14:56:50 GMT

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