- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 01:55:47 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
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