- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:28:10 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1E3E686A-2EB2-4141-B1E3-479C58EC8A67@garlik.com>
On 19 Oct 2006, at 00:17, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > Andy Seaborne wrote on 10/17/2006 01:45:17 PM: > > > Fred, > > > > The design message I metioned was: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0145 > > > > An explicit assigment might be the best long term approach if it > is also > > available in the main part of the query, otherwise a syntax that is > > specific to the SELECT clause seems more appropriate. To be > compatible > > with the results format as it stands, there needs to be a > variable name > > - that could change to a more general label - but just positional > does > > not work because the XML results format omits unbound variables, not > > record them explicitly. > > To hopefully help hasten a decision on the punctuationSyntax issue, > I just wanted to write a note to state that we're (Elias and I -- > IBM) in favor of keeping the SELECT clause syntax as-is for the > current version of SPARQL. We're sympathetic to people's desires to > allow expressions in the SELECT list, but are also confident (in > part thanks to Andy's message referenced above) that keeping the > current comma-less design will not prohibit expressions in the > SELECT list in the future. All other things being equal I would prefer to have mandatory commas in all lists, but Garlik has a considerable number of queries backing our system that work without commas, and is in favour of a speedy resolution. So, we are also in favour of keeping the SELECT syntax as- is. - Steve
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 07:28:18 UTC