- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:27 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:04:35PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Kendall Clark wrote: > SPARQL/QL is defined abstractly (basic pattern, group, union, optional, > graph, > filter) And except for a few exceptions (concessions, really, to *some* sense of human readability), that's pretty much the level of my XML serialization. I'm ignoring all the syntactic sugar, as I don't really care about roundtripping. > Could you say what connections and dependencies you are discovering? Well, for example, WSDL defines several possible ways of passing messages around (in the Bindings spec), only one of which is "serialize into a GET" (which is, basically, a REST fetishization of the URI, treating it *precisely* as a message body -- but that's no matter :>); and another of which is to POST or otherwise pass an XML instance that represents the message. So I suspect this XML serialization of SPARQL queries should "play nicely" with WSDL's sense of how to pass XML instances around. So, hmm, I've not really discovered anything earth-shattering yet, I just kinda expect to find some bits here and there that need to be synched. > Just asking but is it proposed that a SPARQL/XML syntax be part of our Last > Call > bundle of docs? Or is it a WG note? Something else? I can't imagine it could be done in time to go to Last Call w/ the query doc. As I've said, I'm fine with the query doc going to LC before the protocol doc. I think it would be good if SparqlX could go to LC at the same time as protocol. I'd like it to be a normative way of representing a query, which is to say: no processor would be required to consume it, but it would be *the* XML serialization of a SPARQL query. > Should there be an RDF encoding of the query structure? Sure, why not? I don't have a problem with that. I'm unlikely to do the work, but I'd support someone doing it. > If we want > multiple syntaxes, a shared abstract model of a query encoded into various > forms would be cool. Yes, and I think such a thing lives in rq23. Multiple "major syntaxes" (i.e., human readable, XML, RDF) would serve as a useful kind of debugging/reality-check, IMO. Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 16:20:15 UTC