- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:35:00 -0400
- To: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
- Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 06:07:53AM -0700, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Kendall Clark wrote: > > > Sorry, I don't mean to be nasty, the asemantics guys are great!, but > > these are all much worse than "?foo". > > Pick another one then :) - pretty much all other chars are safe except for > the surrounders, _ and % if you ignore languages and just consider DB > interfaces. I'm pretty strongly tied to "?foo". I hate hate hate to ignore or flout conventions. > select id title > from <dbms://localhost/rfid> > where (id foo:id <urn:froefroe... > .. > using foo ... > > by simply insisting that any and all literals have a "" or '' , URI's > always have a <> around them and anything else must use a : separator > for the namepsace ? Hmm, that's moderately better than most of the rest, I suppose. But when I scan a query, I want the variables to stick out, and they don't really stick out here. > Also think of the upside; do this right and you can instantly allow ANY > language/installation which has an ODBC, JDBC, ADO, whatever SQL interface > do semantic web queries with virtually no rework on the client side. I'm a bit skeptical of this generally, but especially since it doesn't give any consideration (unless I'm mistaken) to our protocol, which will certainly require some client changes, yeah? > AND > you get at least some instant buy in from the people currently in control > of data storage and the SQL bastion. Yeah, Dirk, I acknowledge that this is a desideratum. Not sure it's worth the cost, but it's more persuasive than avoiding buggy JDBC implementations. Best, Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 13:37:06 UTC