Re: [JavaScriptFunctions] any WG implementations / advocacy?

Lee,

My vote is -1 even if Virtuoso will support extended JavaScript in
version 7. (More correctly, Virtuoso/PL will be extended in such a way
that it will become a superset of JavaScript.)

The reason is that we have no time to extend JavaScript spec with
RDF-specific types and operators, including SPARQL invocation BTW. And
even if we extend, the resulting language will require new runtime,
blocking "two independent implementations".

What we can is 1) to note that there's a possibility in a distant
future, so at least SPARQL syntax and keywords should not conflict with
JavaScript, to make the future integration "peaceful" and 2) to mention
some place like ESW wiki page as a placeholder for future proposals.
Cheap and non-normative.

Best Regards,
Ivan.

On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 18:21 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> I was just taking a look at 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:JavaScriptFunctions which was 
> submitted on our -comments list by Holger Knublauch of TopQuadrant.
> 
> The gist, as I understand it, is asking implementations to dereference 
> URIs of unknown FILTER functions to retrieve RDF descriptions that 
> contain JavaScript implementations of the functions.
> 
> I think this is pretty cool, myself, but it also seems very new, a very 
> high burden for implementors, and potentially fraught with security 
> concerns that I haven't thought of yet.
> 
> I'd like to know if there are any other implementations of this feature 
> (which, to generalize a bit, I'd call a mechanism for interoperably 
> resolving unknown SPARQL functions) and also if there are any Working 
> Group members who care to advocate in favor of the group producing a 
> specification for this feature.
> 
> Lee
>

Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 06:50:30 UTC