Re: trivial question about SPARQL

thanks a lot Andy, Dan

I think I am looking at too many documents at once at any given time
had not seen the link to the new version, I knew it had to be somewhere

I am finding it really difficult to find the uptodate docs on the site, is 
there a way of flagging the
outdated stuff more prominently (put them in a liked category superseded_by 
comes to mind) or somethign

cheers

PDM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
To: <editor@content-wire.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: trivial question about SPARQL


>
> 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 10:20:23 UTC