- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:19:14 -0500
- To: Simon Raboczi <raboczi@tucanatech.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
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. Simon, 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. But... 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. Kendall -- 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