W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: rdf in xproc

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:05:49 -0400
To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Cc: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2d4jy1bea.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com> writes:

> On 22 Aug 2008, at 04:02, Paul Tyson wrote:
>> XProc [1] is in Last Call, and as it stands has no built-ins for RDF
>> processing.  Do any in the community agree with me that having some
>> standard pipeline facilities for RDF processing would be a good thing?
> Given the situation, and what others have said, the only thing I'd
> like is a way to construct query strings, which would make sparql
> nicer to work with. To explain, currently it seems like you'd do:
> <p:document href="http://example.com/rq?
> query=.............encoded.noise............."/>
> Which is entirely functional, but not very readable. Any chance of:
> <p:document href="http://example.com/rq">
> 	<param name="query">
> 	</param>
> </p:document>

No, but this seems perfectly straightfoward:

<p:sparql href="http://example.com/rq">
  <p:param name="query"> ... </p:param>

Actually, I'd probably try to make the query parameter an option.

If someone could propose a practical signature for a SPARQL step, I'd
like to see it.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | When a book and a head collide and
http://nwalsh.com/            | there is a hollow sound, is it always
                              | the book?-- Lichtenberg

Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 19:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:49:44 UTC