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

Re: new version of fed query

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:52:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4D39B9BF.1060801@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
On 1/21/2011 11:30 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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.

This seems fine.

> Discussion of optionality can go in the federated query document

I think given the unified grammar that we'll need to work on the 
conformance section at 
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#conformance . It 
will need to note what makes an implementation conformant with SPARQL 
Query, since the grammar referenced there includes SPARQL Update and 
SPARQL Fed Extensions. I'll think about this some more.


> 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 16:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC