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

Re: Description and thoughts behind option 6 (part 1 of 2)

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:38:11 -0400
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C1021586-AB87-4839-8554-C5F529837F95@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On Mar 30, 2012, at 5:25 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> == Option 6
> 
> 6.A:   /, |, ! as there are in 2LC.
> 6.B:   *, +, ? are non-counting
> 6.C:   No DISTINCT
> 6.D:   No {} forms: {n}, {n,m}, {n,}, {,m}


I like this. The design looks like it strikes a nice balance. It doesn't involve supporting multiple path semantics, it provides intuitive results to the use cases in F&R, and it leaves plenty of room for expansion of property path features in extensions or future SPARQL standards. I wonder if there might be some pushback on dropping the {n,m} form, but otherwise I think this is great. I'd support this over the alternatives we've been considering.

.greg
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 18:38:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT