Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 8 Feb

> 1. Convene, take roll, review records and agenda
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>   2005-02-01T14:30Z
>
>   tel:+1.617.761.6200 code:7333
>   supplementary IRC chat:irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>     log to appear:http://www.w3.org/2005/02/01-dawg-irc
>
> scribe: EricP
> Regrets Alberto Reggiori, Kendall Clark
>   partial regrets AndyS
>
> records:
>
> PROPOSED to accept
>   RDF Data Access Working Group Meeting, 19-20 January 2005
>   hosted near Helsinki, Finland by Profium
>   Dan Connolly, chair 
>   with thanks to the scribes: JanneS, DaveB, AndyS, EricP, SteveH 
>   $Revision: 1.56 $ of $Date: 2005/02/07 15:20:36 $
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html
> as a true record
>
> PROPOSED to accept
>   RDF Data Access WG Teleconference
>   1 Feb 2005


In http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html#item18
I see that the topic "SPARQL punctuation syntax" is

[[
RESOLVED: to adopt the syntax of 1.171 SPARQL draft
over the objection of EricP and with KendallC abstaining.
]]

In the comment
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0387.html
I read and fully support the idea that

[[
The grammar for SPARQL frequently involves graph patterns.   These 
should use the N3 grammar, specifically a subset at a level to the 
subset known as Turtle.
]]

it is sharply motivated in rest of that message e.g.

[[
(Similarly, the list construct for 
collections makes it possible to actually use lists in practice, where 
elaborations in terms of rdf:first and rdf:rest are impractically 
cumbersome.)
]]

For me this is an ISSUE and I herewith would like to put it.


-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 23:39:49 UTC