W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: new version of fed query

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:30:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4D39B490.9000405@epimorphics.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
CC: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
I added a section on BINDINGS to rq25:

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#bindings


For Federated query there is a top level section,

[[
14 Basic Federated Query

This document incorporates the syntax for SPARQL federation extensions.

This feature is defined in the document SPARQL 1.1 Federation Extensions 
[Link].
]]

[link] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-federated-query/

While this feels a bit odd, on balance, it seems better than just 
placing a sentence or two in the introduction or some other overall 
text. Discussion of optionality can go in the federated query document

Formal definition for BINDINGS also incorporated.  This is done during 
translation from the abstract syntax to the algebra; the new result is 
that there are no new algebra operators.

Carlos - we'll need to sync the docs up now that BINDINGS is in the 
query doc.  Let me know of anything I need to do to rq25.

	Andy

On 20/12/10 16:36, Steve Harris wrote:
> First of all, I've not yet read this document, but I have a comment and Andy's notes...
>
> On 2010-12-20, at 16:10, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> ...
>> Doc length: While we have said that we'd incorporate this into the main query document, I'm now owdoenrign if this is a good idea.  The content of the doc is 9 pages of content.   That's a lot to put in rq25 and big enough to be it's own document.  Suggestion: keep it in the main grammar, have a reference from the query document to federated query in the intro and note in the grammar section it includes the grammar rules needed.
>
> Agreed. rq25 is already quite big, and another 9 pages will make it quite imposing for potential implementors.
>
>> (To be a bit contrary to the above point):
>> BINDINGS: Should we separate this from SERVICE because it's used in the (non-SERVICE) query sent to the remote endpoint.
>
> I think it makes sense to do that.
>
> - Steve
>
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 16:30:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT