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

Re: syntax for the algebra - or "shortcuts" for subselect

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:16:10 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EFC22ED2-2915-4FDD-B310-DC96E3739B54@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
That's fair enough, particularly given our time line. I'd still wanted it recorded and frankly be kind of in 
favor to record this as an ISSUE to probably postpone for a future WG...


On 11 Aug 2010, at 13:10, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> On 11/08/10 10:50, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > (sorry, previous message was unfinished)
> >
> > Had this in my mind for a while... but didn't have a chance to write it down yet:
> > Along the discussions around BIND, I am thinking about why only decoupling project expressions
> > but not also operators in the algebra that are syntactically bound to (sub)select at the moment, namely:
> We went through a process to decide on what the WG would address and no
> new evidence has come in (aside from the comment of generalized
> aggregation which we decided to note and stick with what we have got).
> Had we been starting from scratch (and what we have learned from SPARQL
> in-action particualr the common reading of lexical top-to-bottom reading
> of queries), a syntax that didn't scramble the different operations and
> present them in a jumbled order would be something I'd advocate.
> But we're not starting from scratch.  There is some value for the
> familiar of the SQL approach, even if it is a bit weird.
> Existing implementations have followed SQL's style in their extension
> syntax.
>         Andy
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 17:16:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:01 UTC