- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:54:24 -0600
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 18:01 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: [...] > > - Allows one to create some example data, view it as N3, and then paste > > it into the 'construct' clause, replacing a few values with variables. > > This is a compelling argument IMHO. It suggests using N3-like syntax to capture > triple patterns. Compelling... that suggests you'll be updating the SPARQL spec to use N3-like syntax for triple patterns. Note the WG made a decision 30 Nov to adopt test cases that do _not_ use an N3-like syntax to capture triple patterns. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0394.html so if you do make that design change, we'll need to reconsider that decision. Hmm... the "should be N3 subste" comment was made 29 Nov 2004 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2004Nov/0021.html and since it takes time for comments to propagate, it's reasonable to consider the comment new information since the 30 Nov decision. On the other hand, we just made *another* decision today to adopt 4 more tests using the non-N3 syntax. As chair, I should have led a discussion of this N3 syntax topic before putting that question. oops. [...] > Summary: We can align syntax without creating dependences on things that don't > yet exist. I'm inclined to treat that as a proposal to re-consider the decisions we made about test cases with non-N3 syntax. At least, I consider discussion of it in order; I'm not going to say "we already considered that and decided it; move on" because while we did make a relevant decision, I don't think we considered this input first. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 16:53:57 UTC