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

Re: Dave Beckett's Comment

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:17:14 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2082098B-26A7-4002-8D0F-77F238420A36@garlik.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On 2010-12-14, at 16:14, Axel Polleres wrote:

> my personal opinion on those:
> 
> just my two cents...
> 
> On 13 Dec 2010, at 11:55, Steve Harris wrote:
> 
>> My (incomplete, see below) draft response is at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DBeckett-1
>> 
>> One thing he raises is:
>> 
>> “"SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"
>> is rather a long title; what does 'Uniform' or 'HTTP' add?  SOAP is dead.
>> suggest "SPARQL 1.1 RDF Graph Management Protocol"
>> or RDF dataset”
>> 
>> I'm inclined to agree, but do we want to discuss a rename of the document at this point, or are we happy with it as is?
> 
> I think this is covered by the open ACTION-290 and - at this point - suggest to answer along these lines.
> "We have an open action http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/290 on this in the working group 
> and will consider this suggestion in this context." 

I don't think that action is particularly relevant to Dave's question.

>> another:
>> 
>> “9 Property Paths
>> I am unlikely to ever implement any of this, it's a second query
>> language inside SPARQL.  How many systems implemented this before
>> the SPARQL 1.1 work was started?”
>> 
>> I don't know the answer to that offhand, did we find that when we were voting for what features to include?
> 
> I guess we should probably answer that several systems implemented property paths in one or the other form, 
> concretely I think ARQ and Virtuoso had some support for property paths, right? In the process of the working group, it 
> converged to the current proposal.

That's pretty much what I did in the wiki text:

“At the start of the working group, the group discussed the various features that were desired by the community, and voted on where people's priorities lay. At this stage things like the number of existing implementations were taken into account. There were seven known implementations at that time, the ones listed at http://esw.w3.org/SPARQL/Extensions/Paths plus cwm.”

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 15:17:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT