- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aduna-software.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:55:36 +0200
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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. Hooking up to this, I briefly talked this over with colleagues and although we favor the comma-design in principle (that is, had we started from scratch), we can certainly live with the current design and are likewise confident that it does not prohibit expressions/functions in the SELECT list. Jeen -- Aduna - Guided Exploration www.aduna-software.com Prinses Julianaplein 14-b 3817 CS Amersfoort The Netherlands +31-33-4659987 (office)
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 09:57:18 UTC