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

Thanks!
-Alan

On May 3, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> 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.
>
> thanks,
> Lee
>
> 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 Saturday, 5 May 2007 05:53:56 UTC