W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: ACTION-605 follow-up: property path commenters' reactions

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:52:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4F842D0E.7010408@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

On 10/04/12 11:57, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Dear all,
> First Lee thanks for collecting the opinions of the commenters.
> after reading through the thread, my personal impression of the main reason for disagreement is that the group consensus from last week and the commenters' view
> are orthogonal (but both valid) viewpoints of what is a "natural"
> semantics for PPs.
> Axel

Most of the conversation is centered on "*".  It is important that we 
consider user expectations of queries such as:

SELECT (sum(?cost) AS ?total)
    :order :hasItem/:price ?cost

here, duplicates make sense because it works with aggregation.

It has been noted that such queries can be written out in long form, as 
two triple patterns.  But if the abbreviated form is counter-intuitive, 
it will be a source of problems and cost (e.g. support, education) going 

It is probably useful to think of "/" as a syntactic shorthand, like ";" 
and "," in Turtle, than as a completely new path operator.  This has 
been borne out by user feedback - convenient representation of queries 
is useful to application writers.

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:53:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:06 UTC