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

Re: Agenda for tomorrow's TC 2010-08-24

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:27:24 -0400
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6A5C33A0-C97B-4199-A53B-C6FE446D79B9@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:

>> * SPARQL 1.1 Common Functions Library
>>   Status? Are we doing it? Document?
>> 
>> * should move to promote the JSON format as a REC
>>   and canonicalise its name?
>> 
> 
> Good points as well, I would prefer to move them to next time, though.

I don't know what would be involved in including both of these at this point, but I think both of these are important. There are many implementations that share a common set of functions that would benefit from standardization (most of these are probably from XPath F&O and have been listed on the wiki[1]; Leigh Dodds' survey[2] is also relevant here). The JSON format is similarly implemented by several implementations and standardization would greatly benefit potential new users of SPARQL for whom JSON is a preferable format to XML.

Is the WG timeline the primary argument against including these in our current work?

thanks,
.greg

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#XQuery_1.0_and_XPath_2.0_Functions_and_Operators
[2] http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AkNZYESXv3IndGwyRkRXZ2hES0RjM0c3MHhLa05vTmc&gid=6
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 00:27:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT