W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: SPARQL vnext new feature? cascadedQueries

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:09:39 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0711032109v77485a04g3ef1e5d7d48088ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
This is a particularly easy one, since it adds no new expressivity. The form
below can be syntactically transformed into SPARQL as specified now by way
of using the SPARQL protocol for the construct in the FROM.
Since this is the only reasonable way we have to do federation now, within
spec, it's more like adding friendly syntactic sugar.


-Alan


On 11/3/07, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >
> > SELECT ?a ?b
> >   FROM ( CONSTRUCT { ?d <b> ?b }
> >                           FROM < http://example.com/sparql?>
> >                         WHERE { ?b <b> ?d } )
> >  WHERE { ?a <b> ?b }
>
>
> Yes... the Data Access WG considered this sort of thing briefly;
> we didn't see any particular reason not to do it but we...
>
> RESOLVED 2005-01-20: to postpone cascadedQueries; while federation use
> cases are interesting, the designs don't seem mature and the use cases
> are not urgent; with KendallC abstaining.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#cascadedQueries
>
> I'm happy to see people playing around with it; I hope the
> designs get mature soonish.
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:09:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:05 GMT