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

Re: trivial question about SPARQL

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:11:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4799B5D7.9080308@danbri.org>
To: editor@content-wire.com
Cc: semantic-web@w3c.org

editor@content-wire.com wrote:
>  
> Is this the current working doc?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/

Not wishing to seem snarky, but if you read the words on the first page 
of that document, the clue to your answer is buried in there:

[
W3C Working Draft 12 October 2004
This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
]

To avoid suspense: the answer is no, that's a pretty old draft.  If you 
follow the link you'll get to the recently finalised recommendation:
[
SPARQL Query Language for RDF
W3C Recommendation 15 January 2008

This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/
Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
Previous version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PR-rdf-sparql-query-20071112/
]


> What's the status of: SquishQL, RDQL, and TriQL ? still in use?

Squish became SquishSQL became RDQL became SPARQL. Some toolkits can 
parse the older stuff, but people are moving pretty comprehensively to 
SPARQL I think. I don't know much about TriQL. There are certainly 
non-SPARQL languages in use, as well as various experimental extensions 
to SPARQL. That's all good and healthy I think (so long as mainstream 
developers are left in no confusion about which language features are in 
the common core standard).

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 10:11:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:20 GMT