- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:46:35 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 16:08 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: [...] > > The expression stuff including datatypes is just working on the > detail and looks on the right track, I can't see any big problems > with the current approach. EricP, Dave, please note some recent comments... [[ 3. Required SPARQL operators This is less clear-cut to me, but I think there are some of the specified operators that don't need to be mandatory in every implementation, there being an extension mechanism to fall back to. I think a minimal set of operators might be string and numeric comparisons, plus the SPARQL tests BOUND, ISURI, ISBLANK, ISLITERAL. The XQuery connectives appear to duplicate the union and intersection (group) graph patterns. Although date/time tests are clearly useful for a significant class of applications, I don't think they are needed for all applications, and could be optional. Similarly, I can see regex matching is useful but not always essential, and it does in some cases impose a significant implementation burden if the right form of regex library happens not to be available -- I think this feature should be optional. ... While considering value-testing options: Concerning extensibility of value testing operations, I think there should be an option to treat unrecognized tests as "True" rather than failures, this resulting in additional query results being returned that can be filtered by the client (thus allowing a client application to work with different query processors with differing support for value testing functions). I also think that it would be useful if there is a mechanism to discover what value testing operations are supported by a query processor, maybe as part of the protocol, or simply using some special RDF vocabulary to make queries about the processor itself (I favour the latter). ... In our research group, we have a strong requirement to perform stemmed string matching in RDF queries, which is handled natively by the underlying database. (This project is using Jena on Postgres, and to achieve this functionality we currently have to perform an evil hack which involves manipulating Jena's underlying database schema, so we can use the Postgres' test-stemming search directly. Ugh!!) Extensible value-tests in SPARQL seems to be the right way to address this kind of problem, so that a query processor supporting this feature can make maximal use of the underlying capabilties. I mention this here simply so that the requirement can be noted as a desideratum for SPARQL. ... ]] -- Klyne in Comments on SPARQL 17-Feb-2005 draft http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Apr/0010.html > DESCRIBE is looking rather odd, as I learnt it wasn't quite what I > thought it was having read through the document fully. That message also comments on DESCRIBE, but that's old news; that issue is closed. > Dave -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 19:46:37 UTC