- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:39:27 -0400
- To: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>, Alexandre Bertails <alexandre@bertails.org>
- CC: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53D52B3F.2090101@w3.org>
On 07/27/2014 11:05 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Alexandre Bertails
> <alexandre@bertails.org <mailto:alexandre@bertails.org>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
> > On 07/27/2014 09:37 AM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/26/2014 10:20 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/26/2014 02:55 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/26/2014 01:44 PM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Sandro:
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the pointers. I read some of the mail and the
> conclusion
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> came
> >>>>>>> to seems a bit different from what you concluded. I did
> not see a
> >>>>>>> big
> >>>>>>> push for
> >>>>>>> SPARQL. Instead I found from
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2014Jul/0206.html:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "The other possibilities, no matter what the outcome of
> the workshop,
> >>>>>>> *are*
> >>>>>>> ready to be standardized and I rather suspect some work on
> combining
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> best elements of each will get us much further, must
> faster than
> >>>>>>> trying
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> mature ShEx."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, this argues for leading with existing solutions, ICV
> and SPIN,
> >>>>>>> rather
> >>>>>>> than
> >>>>>>> with ShEX because the other solution have some
> implementation and
> >>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>> behind them. Makes perfect sense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But the PATCH case seems to be different as AFAIK there
> are no other
> >>>>>>> existing
> >>>>>>> solutions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can always argue if they are suitable for the problem,
> but other
> >>>>> existing/potential solutions include: SPARQL Update in full,
> 2 subsets
> >>>>> of SPARQL Update, and RDF Patch + skolemization.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Isn't SPARQL UPDATE an existing solution for PATCH?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It serves the basic purpose, although it has some
> drawbacks, like bad
> >>>>>> worst-case performance and being fairly hard to implement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Those same things, however, could quite reasonably be said
> about ICV
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> SPIN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't know about ICV, SPIN or ShEx (ok, just a little bit,
> maybe).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To be clear, they are only relevant as another example of how
> inventing
> >>>> something which could be done by SPARQL (even if painfully)
> gets a lot
> >>>> of
> >>>> pushback.
> >>>
> >>> Have you considered that the pushback _could_ be justified?
> >>>
> >>> For example, I really like SPARQL, for several reasons, but as
> I have
> >>> explained, I really think it is not appropriate as a PATCH
> format for
> >>> LDP.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I just have two remarks:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * SPARQL Update as a whole was developed for RDF databases,
> namely
> >>>>> quad stores, with expressive power from the rest of SPARQL.
> I don't
> >>>>> know if it was designed with use-cases as in RDF Validation,
> but I do
> >>>>> know it was not designed for the use-case of updating LDP-RS
> on the
> >>>>> LDP platform.
> >>>>> * building a technology on top of an existing one is
> something I tend
> >>>>> to prefer whenever it makes sense. But in our case, we are
> talking
> >>>>> about taking the subset of an existing language, while remaining
> >>>>> compatible with it. This is *not* as easy as it seems at first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would prefer to hear about concrete proposals on how to do
> that. As
> >>>>> somebody who _cannot_ rely on an existing SPARQL
> implementations, and
> >>>>> who is not planning to implement one in full for that
> use-case, I
> >>>>> would like to see a concrete syntax written down, with a formal
> >>>>> semantics for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, I'm going to make two concrete proposals.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Just use SPARQL 1.1 Update. The whole thing. I know
> it doesn't
> >>>> handle lists well. What else is wrong with it? Why can you
> not use it?
> >>>
> >>> I became interested in LDP because it was the first time RDF was
> >>> becoming a first-class citizen of the Web, by that I mean
> applications
> >>> can interact (read/write) *directly* with RDF resources using
> HTTP,
> >>> without being behind an endpoint. That's what we meant by LDP
> being
> >>> the intersection of RDF and REST.
> >>>
> >>> The W3C has finally recognized a few years ago that native RDF
> was not
> >>> the only use-case for RDF applications. You can now have a
> relational
> >>> database (RDB2RDF), CSV files (RDF for Tabular Data), XML (GRDDL,
> >>> XSLT), etc. But not necessarily a triple/quad store. For
> example, at
> >>> the company I work for, we have several (ie. physically
> disconnected)
> >>> Datomic and Cassandra servers, and we are now exposing some of the
> >>> data behind LDP, with the objective of doing for all of our
> data. In
> >>> all those cases, we want to expose and link our data on the
> Web, like
> >>> all those so-called RESTful APIs, but in a more consistent
> way, and
> >>> using RDF as the model and the exchange data format. Hence
> LDP, and
> >>> not yet-another-web-api.
> >>>
> >>> The reason I am telling you all that is that supporting SPARQL for
> >>> those virtual RDF datasets is not that easy (when possible)
> when you
> >>> don't have a quadstore as your backend. Reverse mapping for simple
> >>> SPARQL queries is hard. And SPARQL Update is even worse to
> support.
> >>> Basically, forcing SPARQL Update onto LDP facing applications for
> >>> simple resource updates on single LDP-RS (ie. PATCH) is like
> using a
> >>> hammer to kill a fly.
> >>>
> >>> So full SPARQL Update is simply a no-go for me. I just cannot
> support
> >>> it completely, as some features cannot correctly be mapped to
> Datomic
> >>> and Cassandra.
> >>
> >>
> >> So this is the key. You want to be able to support PATCH on
> databases
> >> that are not materialized as either triples OR as SQL.
> >>
> >> If the database was SQL, then (as I understand it), SPARQL
> Update would be
> >> okay, because it can be mapped to SQL.
> >>
> >> But you don't know how to map SPARQL Update to NoSQL databases,
> or it's
> >> just too much work.
> >>
> >> I take it you do know how to map LD-Patch to Cassandra and Datomic?
> >>
> >> [ BTW, Datomic sounds awesome. Is it as fun to use as I'd
> imagine? ]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also, if I was in a case where SPARQL Update was ok for me to use
> >>> (it's not), then I suspect that I wouldn't need LDP at all,
> and SPARQL
> >>> + Update + Graph Store protocol would just be enough. And there is
> >>> nothing preventing one from using SPARQL Update right now.
> Just don't
> >>> call it LD Patch.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not about what's called what, it's about what we promote
> as the the
> >> PATCH format. If we had a simple enough PATCH format, then we
> could
> >> possibly make it a MUST to implement in the next version of LDP.
> >
> >
> > I think Alexandre makes a valid point. For a spec (LDP) that
> explicitly
> > tried to avoid SPARQL, using this format for PATCH makes
> absolutely no sense
> > to me.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think SPARQL Update is simple enough for that, but my
> prediction
> >> is the LD-Patch will turn out, sadly, to not be either.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 2. Use SPARQL 1.1 Update with an extension to handle lists well.
> >>>> Specifically, it would be a slice function, usable in FILTER and
> >>>> especially
> >>>> in BIND. This seems like a no-brainer to include in SPARQL
> 1.2. I'd
> >>>> want
> >>>> to talk to a few of the SPARQL implementers and see if
> they're up for
> >>>> adding
> >>>> it. Maybe a full set of list functions like [1].
> >>>
> >>> Sorry but I don't know RIF and your idea is still very vague
> for me. I
> >>> understand how you can provide new functions for matching
> nodes in an
> >>> rdf:list but I fail to see how this plays in a SPARQL Update
> query.
> >>>
> >>> Can you just provide some examples where you are doing the
> equivalent
> >>> of that python code (I know read python):
> >>
> >>
> >> Probably not worthwhile to go into this now, given your veto on
> SPARQL.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> [[
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> l = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
> >>>>>> l[2:2] = [11,12]
> >>>>>> l[2:7] = [13,14]
> >>>>>> l[2:] = [15,16]
> >>>>>> l.append(17)
> >>>
> >>> ]]
> >>>
> >>>> If we want a subset, we could define it purely by restricting the
> >>>> grammar --
> >>>> eg leaving out the stuff that does federation, negation,
> aggregation, --
> >>>> with no need to say anything about the semantics except they
> are the
> >>>> same as
> >>>> SPARQL. Until I hear what the problem is with SPARQL,
> though, I don't
> >>>> want
> >>>> to start excluding stuff.
> >>>
> >>> Am I the only one thinking that "no need to say anything about the
> >>> semantics except they are the same as SPARQL" is just plain wrong?
> >>>
> >>> I mean, would we really tell implementers and users of the
> technology
> >>> that they have to go learn SPARQL before they can start
> understanding
> >>> what subset correctly apply to LD Patch? And how? And would
> they still
> >>> need to carry this ResultSet semantics over while a lot of us
> would
> >>> explicitly prefer avoiding it?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think the users who are writing PATCHes by hand will be
> familiar with
> >> SPARQL. And if they are not, there are lots of other reasons
> to learn it.
> >
> >
> > Except that LDP explicitly made a point to avoid SPARQL. Since
> the LDP model
> > is all about interacting with resources by using their
> individual URIs,
> > PATCH-ing resources through a SPARQL endpoint goes against the
> core LDP
> > believes.
> >
> >
> > Note that no one is proposing using a SPARQL endpoint -- just
> that SPARQL
> > Update be used as a HTTP PATCH format. (This is an idea that
> the SPARQL
> > WG also suggested for GSP.)
>
> Why not POSTing application/sparql-update then? You can define a
> profile (not sure it's necessary), and you're done.
>
Sure, that's the question I asked during the telecon. Why do we need
to do anything?
>
> I was just about to ask that. In that case, why do we need two specs?
> Can't we just say that implementers would either have to go with the
> current LD-Patch proposal or use SPARQL Update?
Having some servers implement one thing and some implement another makes
it hard to write clients, right? Ideally every server would implement
the same PATCH format. Of course we're not in an ideal world, but
still it would be good to try to converge.
The advantage of having a patch format that's a subset of SPARQL is that
servers can implement either one, the clients that want interop can just
stick to the subset.
-- Sandro
>
> Alexandre
>
> >
> > -- Sandro
> >
> >
> > -- Andrei
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Contrast that with LD-Patch, for which there is no other reason it.
> >>
> >> You seem to think LD-Patch's syntax and semantics are easy. I
> don't
> >> think they are. Maybe if you expanded the path syntax only
> many rows it
> >> would be more clear what it means.
> >>
> >> I can't help but regret again that we didn't chose to use
> TurtlePatch
> >> (which I first wrote on your wall, the week after the workshop
> - even if I
> >> didn't figure out how to handle bnodes until this year).
> >> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/TurtlePatch
> >>
> >> -- Sandro
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alexandre
> >>>
> >>>> -- Sandro
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Alexandre
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Sandro
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All the best, Ashok
> >>>>>>> On 7/26/2014 6:10 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On July 25, 2014 2:48:28 PM EDT, Alexandre Bertails
> >>>>>>>> <alexandre@bertails.org <mailto:alexandre@bertails.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ashok Malhotra
> >>>>>>>>> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Alexandre:
> >>>>>>>>>> The W3C held a RDF Validation Workshop last year.
> >>>>>>>>>> One of the questions that immediately came up was
> >>>>>>>>>> "We can use SPARQL to validate RDF". The answer was
> >>>>>>>>>> that SPARQL was to complex and too hard to learn.
> >>>>>>>>>> So, we compromised and the workshop recommended
> >>>>>>>>>> that a new RDF validation language should be developed
> >>>>>>>>>> to cover the simple cases and SPARQL could be used when
> >>>>>>>>>> things got complex.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that you can make a similar argument
> >>>>>>>>>> for RDF Patch.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I totally agree with that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Ashok. I'm going to use
> the same
> >>>>>>>> situation to argue the opposite.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's relatively easy for a group of people, especially at
> a face to
> >>>>>>>> face
> >>>>>>>> meeting, too come to the conclusion SPARQL is too hard to
> learn and
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> should invent something else. But when we took it to
> the wider
> >>>>>>>> world, we
> >>>>>>>> got a reaction that's so strong it's hard not to
> characterize as
> >>>>>>>> violent.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You might want to read:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2014Jul/thread.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Probably the most recent ones right now give a decent
> summary and
> >>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>> don't have to read them all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have lots of theories to explain the disparity. Like:
> people who
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> freely chosen to join an expedition are naturally more
> inclined to
> >>>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>> somewhere interesting.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not saying we can't invent something new, but be sure to
> >>>>>>>> understand
> >>>>>>>> the battle to get it standardized may be harder than just
> >>>>>>>> implementing
> >>>>>>>> SPARQL everywhere.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Sandro
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alexandre
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All the best, Ashok
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2014 9:34 AM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:04 AM, John Arwe
> <johnarwe@us.ibm.com <mailto:johnarwe@us.ibm.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another problem is the support for rdf:list. I have just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> finished
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> writing down the semantics for UpdateList and based
> on that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, I know this is something I want to rely
> on as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is so easy to get it wrong, so I want
> native support
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it. And I don't think it is possible to do something
> equivalent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> SPARQL Update. That is a huge drawback as list
> manipulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (eg.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JSON-LD, or Turtle) is an everyday task.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is semantics for UpdateList (that you wrote down)
> somewhere
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> WG
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> members
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can look at it, and satisfy themselves that they
> agree with your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You can find the semantics at [1]. Even if still
> written in Scala
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> now, this is written in a (purely functional) style,
> which is
> >>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>> close to the formalism that will be used for the
> operational
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> semantics
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the spec. Also, note that this is the most complex
> part of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> entire semantics, all the rest being pretty simple,
> even Paths.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> spent a lot of time finding the general solution while
> breaking
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> simpler sub-parts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell, you have 3 steps: first you move to the
> left
> >>>>>>>>>>> bound,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then you gather triples to delete until the right
> bound, and you
> >>>>>>>>>>> finally insert the new triples in the middle. It's
> really tricky
> >>>>>>>>>>> because 1. you want to minimize the number of
> operations, even if
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> is only a spec 2. unlike usual linked lists with
> pointers, you
> >>>>>>>>>>> manipulate triples, so the pointer in question is only
> the node
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> object position in the triple, and you need to
> remember and carry
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> corresponding subject-predicate 3. interesting (ie.
> weird) things
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> happen at the limits of the list if you don't pay
> attention.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> https://github.com/betehess/banana-rdf/blob/ldpatch/patch/src/main/scala/Semantics.scala#L62
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not steeped enough in the intracacies of SPARQL
> Update to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> horse
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in this race, but if this issue is the big-animal
> difference
> >>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with the necessary understanding are going to want to
> see the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> details.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IBM products I'm aware of eschew rdf:List (and blank
> nodes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> generally, to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first order), so I don't know how much this one alone
> would sway
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You _could_ generate a SPARQL Update query that would do
> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>> equivalent. But you'd have to match and remember the
> intermediate
> >>>>>>>>>>> nodes/triples.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> JSON-LD users manipulate lists on a day-to-day basis.
> Without
> >>>>>>>>>>> native
> >>>>>>>>>>> support for rdf:list in LD Patch, I would turn to JSON
> PATCH to
> >>>>>>>>>>> manipulate those lists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like the other big-animal difference in
> your email is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we would have to refine the SPARQL semantics so that
> the order
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clauses matters (ie. no need to depend on a query
> optimiser).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds like a more general problem. It might
> mean, in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> effect,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>> one would be able to use existing off-the-shelf
> componentry
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (specs
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> & code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... is that the implication, Those Who Know S-U?) and
> that might
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> well be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solid answer to "why not [use S-U]?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that reordering the clauses doesn't change
> the semantics
> >>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> feature of SPARQL. It means that queries can be
> rearranged for
> >>>>>>>>>>> optimisation purposes. But you never know if the
> execution plan
> >>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> be the best one, and you can end up with huge
> intermediate result
> >>>>>>>>>>> sets.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, if we ever go down the SPARQL Update way,
> I will ask
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> we specify that clauses are executed in order, or
> something like
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And I will ask for a semantics that doesn't rely on
> result sets
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Were there any other big-animal issues you found,
> those two
> >>>>>>>>>>>> aside?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A big issue for me will be to correctly explain the
> subset of
> >>>>>>>>>>> SPARQL
> >>>>>>>>>>> we would be considering, and its limitations compared
> to its big
> >>>>>>>>>>> brother.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you don't implement it from scratch and want
> to rely on
> >>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>> existing implementation, you would still have to
> reject all the
> >>>>>>>>>>> correct SPARQL queries, and that can be tricky too,
> because you
> >>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>> to inspect the query after it is parsed. Oh, and I
> will make sure
> >>>>>>>>>>> there are tests rejecting such queries :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, John
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Voice US 845-435-9470 <tel:845-435-9470> BluePages
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2014 16:39:40 UTC