sparql puncutation [was: agenda: RDF Data Access 8 Feb]

On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 00:39 +0100, wrote:
> For me this is an ISSUE and I herewith would like to put it.

Hmm... I'm not quite sure what you're asking for.
Unless the record of the Helsinki meeting is disputed,
the WG is now decided on SPARQL punctuation syntax.
I prefer to keep issues of syntax off the issues list
in the first place, but moreover, on this question we
are decided.

It's very unfortunate that we did not reach consensus,
but it did not seem to me that we could afford to go much
longer without settling this.

The points you cite do seem well made, but they were known
to the WG when we decided; this is not new information
that I could use to re-open the question.

I do think it's important that we let the world know where
we made decisions without consensus. I'd like the SPARQL
WD to include "priority feedback items" in place where
there are open issues or issues closed over dissent.

I think perhaps an appendix discussing the turtle/n3-style
design alternative for SPARQL would be worthwhile, to either
confirm that our choice is preferred by our readers or otherwise.
Andy, EricP, please consider it.

> In
> 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
> 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.)
> ]]

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 23:59:06 UTC