[OK?] Re: Relaxing qnames in SPARQL queries to allow leading digits after the colon

Hi Alan,

The working group decided ( 
http://www.w3.org/2007/05/01-dawg-minutes#item03 ) to adopt a change that 
allows leading digits in the local parts of SPARQL prefixed names. You can 
see the grammar change in the editors' draft at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html . Note that due to 
schedule concerns and the very late stage at which this change was 
introduced, the Working Group has decided to mark this change as an 
at-risk feature of SPARQL. (See 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi for more 
information on features at risk.)

The group has declined to take on a new dependency on CURIEs at this point 
in our schedule. 

Please let us know if you are satisfied with this response to your 
comments. If you are, you can help our comment tracking by replying to 
this message and adding [CLOSED] to the subject. In the interests of our 
schedule, we will also consider the comment closed if we have not heard 
back from you within 10 days.


Alan Ruttenberg wrote on 04/21/2007 03:58:49 PM:

> I would point out that a reasonable candidate for abbreviations in 
> SPARQL, which was not present the last time the matter was considered 
> are CURIEs, http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/.
> -Alan
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 1:20 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > qnames that I would like to have (because I deal with lots of 
> > numeric identifiers) for example:  pubmed:9822577
> >
> > There are a lot of XML parsers out their, so fixing this for XML 
> > seems like a lost cause. However, I can't see any reason why SPARQL 
> > can't relax the rules.
> > There are no ambiguities that I can identify and hardly any 
> > installed base, so no backward compatibility issues.
> >
> > In fact TURTLE already relaxes the rules compared to XML (just not 
> > enough), and SPARQL tightens them a little, so there is precedent 
> > for mucking around.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I'm only concerned about SPARQL input, not what 
> > it generates if it can or at some time will be able to generate 
> > turtle.
> >
> > I am aware that the issue has been raised before, at least by 
> > Jeremy Carroll, however I can't find any record of a technical 
> > reason why this isn't possible - rather the response is along the 
> > lines of "the WG must have thought about it since they thought of 
> > so many other things and they made a final decision knowing that 
> > there were limitations"
> >
> > Would it be too much to ask for the actual technical reason why 
> > this is not possible? And if no such reason surfaces to reconsider 
> > the issue?
> >
> > The limitation is quite annoying, but that would be tolerable if 
> > there was a good reason for it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alan
> >

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 19:27:28 UTC