- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:48:44 +0000
- To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> a) If we can find consensus, I would like to decide on publishing > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ as FPWD. > Particularly, if you CAN'T participate tomorrow and want to raise > concerns, please send them, if any possible before the Teleconf. What's the status on these comments I've extract below: Key ones are: Non-mention of the time-permitting in F&R.[*] Negation is not syntax For comments not going into the FPWD doc, could you indicate why, please. Andy [*] "View source" does not count. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html ---- 2.2.2 but generally comment: """ That feature could be used, for instance, in the following use cases: """ Not sure "could be used" is helpful without spelling out how it would be done, but that gets into far too much detail. Maybe just stick to the basic point. --- 2.3: Negation. "Hence, a new syntax is desired." The discussions so far have not been able just syntax. The text implies to me that it is just syntax for writing OPTION/!BOUND. The example of MINUS might be taken to imply that is the likely direction of the WG because it's the only example. (mentioning SQL EXISTS has been done). ---- 2.4.3: "though that might be unparseable or something along the lines of" Drifting into discussion? -------- The reply was: Kjetil: > Yeah, I don't like this myself. We should also have a review to ensure that we > only have existing implementations here, and it this sounds like speculation. ================= http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html ------------------ Will the time-permitting features at least be mentioned? Especially SPARQL/OWL. They don't need as much justification (IMO) - indeed for this publication, just placeholder structure is enough but something should go in. Reply: Alex: > We've commented them from the TOC / Structure as we didn't have time > to properly define it for the FPWD. > Yet, I just added the list of complete features in the introduction, > which lists all of them. I still think should list them even if that means empty sections. It's about being complete to the community (the inline link to FeatureProposal does not count). --- == 2.4.2 Project expressions / Descriptions "ex:substring" Use and example from XQuery/XPath F&O (e.g. fn:substring and strings are zero-based) to indicate we will reuse where possible. ------------------ == 2.4.3 Project expressions / Existing implementation """ This is also useful in CONSTRUCT: CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name (concat(?fn, " ", ?sn)) . } WHERE { ?x foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . } """ This is not a project expression! Just keep the section clean and don't discuss CONSTRUCT. Just need a direct discussion of project expressions. ============= And new one: CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ?name } WHERE { (SELECT concat(?fn, " ", ?sn) AS ?name WHERE { foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . }) } Suggest change (SELECT ) to {SELECT } as two implementations already do that.
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 16:50:03 UTC