- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:45:53 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> We're making things too complicated. > > I fully agree. I think we need to take a step back and look at this with > fresh eyes. I would like this to be closer to HTML forms than to S(PAR)QL > queries. Exactly. Perhaps we still need to draft a couple of alternative directions. Just to see if they might be easier. >> A minimal set of symbols includes for me >> at least the possibility to describe >> how a form creates a view from a collection >> for basic combinators such as AND and EQUALS. > > Are you sure the EQUALS is enough? > In a lot of cases the AND can be transformed into an OR by issuing multiple > separate queries but the comparison operator can't be changed with such a trick. EQUALS is not enough for everything; but it is a good default. The mechanism should be extensible (for instance, freeTextQuery). >> we should make that mechanism extensible >> to support other ways of defining views in the future. >> Otherwise, it's again a one-off. > > That's the point I'm struggling most with. Keeping this extensible (without > having to change most of the concepts) introduces a lot of complexity. I > haven't found an elegant way to tame that yet. Do you have any ideas in that > regard? A generic notion of expressions should be sufficient. The core could define a couple of basic operators (AND / EQUALS / …); other specifications might define more complex expressions. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 08:46:14 UTC