- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:03:15 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I just noticed... "The query is composed of sparql-query: an XML Schema string simple type, conforming to the grammar contained in the SPARQL Query Language for RDF [SPARQL-QL] specification." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/ 1.35 I worked with EricP to make a specific term for that... "A SPARQL query is a sequence of characters in the language defined by the following grammar, starting with the Query production." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ 1.330 So the protocol spec should import the term "SPARQL query" from the QL spec; i.e. hypertext link directly to it. It's probably worth declaring a subtype of xs:string for it too. An now that definition doesn't look quite right to me... the grammar doesn't use characters as its terminals. Things like whitespace are treated outside the grammar, and there are multi-character terminals such as 'BOUND'. "A SPARQL query is a sequence of characters that correspond to a sequence of tokens that is in the language defined by the grammar below." Ugh. a mouthful. But correct, and since it goes at the end of the spec, we won't lose any readers over it. The lexical details could be more explicit; we need to be clear how character sequences correspond to token sequences; perhaps what's there is clear enough. It might be nice to list all the tokens, or token types, for example. Using "SPARQL query" for the concrete string form as opposed to the abstract form doesn't seem to be an obvious choice... what did you choose for the abstract syntax, Andy? I see DataSet Graph Pattern... but I don't see anything that includes a CONSTRUCT clause... I suppose a CONSTRUCT clause is just a Graph Pattern. Ah... [[ Definition: SPARQL Query A SPARQL query is a set of a result form, a graph pattern, and a number of solution sequence modifiers. ]] Collision! Perhaps "SPARQL Query string" for the concrete form and keep "SPARQL Query" for the abstract form? I think you mean tuple, not set, by the way... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 19:03:38 UTC