Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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's not clear to me why this is at all relevant, since this kind of
> criterion was not used to decide whether or when to do work in this WG
> previously. The protocol work is, as far as I can tell, non-trivial
> and being done from scratch. I'm okay with that, but I don't know why
> trading on OWL's well-established mapping to RDF is remotely similar.
> JSON's not even a W3C standard.

Didn't you just make the comparison yourself? I'm confused, here.

I believe it's relevant because it shows that the WG Note can be a 
successful way to promote an alternate syntax. That's all.

By the way, existing implementations was most definitely used as a 
criteria in our discussions of proposed features in phase 1 of the work. 
It was not the only criteria, however. We discussed this a lot, so I 
suspect it should be reflected in the WG minutes of the time period.

Lee

>>> 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.
> 
> No one could possibly argue with that. Thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
>

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 18:20:49 UTC