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

Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:05:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4AEB2B04.40609@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> I do think a member submission is technically doable, as long as the
>> SPARQL WG declares the work to be out of scope.
> 
> My org wouldn't support doing this as a member submission, FWIW. It's
> just not that scale of thing, IMO.
> 
>> But the normal approach, I think, would be for someone to prepare it and
>> show it the WG, and if the WG says "sorry, we don't have time to
>> actually work on this right now" (or they just don't want to), then they
>> publish it as a WG note.  For example, as I recall this is what happened
>> with LBase [1] in RDF Core and OWL 1 XML [2] in WebOnt.
> 
> And with SPARQL Results in JSON.

Right. I think this is a good comparison. SPARQL Results in JSON was - 
IIRC - something that was "sort of" implemented at the time but not in 
any consistent way, then the Note prescribed a way that is now 
relatively consistently used between implementations. I think there's a 
strong parallel with what's being discussed here re: alternative 
syntaxes for BGPs.

> It would be ideal, though, if we could avoid prejudging this as DOA,
> at least before it actually arrives. :>

On the other hand, it's good for the folks who will put in the hard work 
to produce this specification/note to have reasonable expectations for 
what may become of it.

Lee

> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 18:06:34 GMT

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