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

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

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:14:32 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0ABD1D68-5BA3-45A0-804F-D8C13514AC13@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>

On 24 Aug 2010, at 01:27, Gregory Williams wrote:

> 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. 

Just for clarification, I meant to move the discussion to the next TC, I agree that both these are important and hopefully still feasible in this round.

Axel

> 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 07:15:02 GMT

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