Re: ACTION: propose test case for scalar constraint with syntax

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:18:29PM +1000, Simon Raboczi wrote:

> between SPARQL and XML Schema datatypes.  The disadvantage is that 
> arithmetic no longer has syntax optimized just for it.


I agree with yr analysis in large part. I like this kind of
simplifying move, too, since it's likely to pay dividends in other
ways (seems more solid to me than just saying "no" to features that
real users really want). I also think that this aspect of iTQL really
does point out what should be SPARQL's extensibility mechanism.

(An aside: I presented SPARQL to 20 compsci/systems researchers, most
of whom know a lot about the Semantic Web, yesterday. These are folks
who know their stuff. One of the first questions I got was "what's the
extensibility mechanism". I suggested DAWG might do something like
iTQL's "special graph" route, but said this was all up in the air. In
addition to being mad as a nest of bees about the "dumbing down" of
our protocol, the absence, so far, of a clean extensibility mechanism
seemed to bother them most.)

I agree about giving comparators special syntax. The (?price > 30)
triple pattern is wickedly elegant.


Maths is *so* important, and the multiple arity RDF collection stuff
is SO hideous, I wonder if there's not something else we could do to
cheat for maths?

I.e., I'm *almost* able to support yr proposals here, I'm just
horrified by the actual surface syntax suggested to handle higher
arity stuff.

Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed
of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 14:20:46 UTC