W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: LET/assignment

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:36:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4C313718.7020808@thefigtrees.net>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Just a reminder: we will discuss & potentially resolve the 
LET/assignment issue in Tuesday's teleconference.


On 6/28/2010 1:01 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> I'd like to start another -- hopefully final -- discussion on the topic
> of whether or not we want to include the assignment feature
> (http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Assignment) in SPARQL 1.1.
> The brief history here, as best I can remember/reconstruct it, is:
> 1. Proposed as feature during WG's original requirements gathering phase
> 2. Received significant support but missed the cut for what we chose to
> work on (http://plugin.org.uk/misc/votes2.svg)
> 3. Raised on the -comments list by Holger Knublauch of TopQuadrant in
> late October and a few dys later again by Jeremy Carroll of TopQuadrant
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2009Oct/0003.html
> followed by
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2009Nov/0000.html)
> 4. Assignment/LET was discussed, at least informally, at F2F2. Other
> keywords were suggested (e.g. BIND) as alternatives to LET. No consensus
> was reached on whether to include a dedicated syntax for assignment.
> 5. We discussed these comments internally in a thread starting near
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0392.html .
> 6. Andy provided some details on how the semantics of LET and SELECT
> expressions relate in late November:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0540.html
> 7. We were asked about this feature by a TopQuadrant user (or employee,
> I actually don't remember which) at the SPARQL 1.1 panel at SemTech.
> I believe in the intervening time, there are implementations other than
> Open Anzo (Glitter) and ARQ which include LET. Is this true?
> I believe that Andy feels that this construct would be a syntactic
> addition that directly invokes the current draft's Extend operation:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#defn_extend
> Based on this history, does anyone have feelings for or against
> including this work? I'd like to discuss over email and then probably in
> next week's teleconference. I'm hoping to resolve the issue (I've
> created ISSUE-57 to track this) relatively soon and move on.
> thanks,
> Lee
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 01:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:03 UTC