- From: Orri Erling <erling@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:30:52 +0200
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:19 PM To: RDF Data Access Working Group Subject: FEATURE: SPARQLX http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQLX There are two flavor of proposal on the table: The old SPARQLX proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/ 0414.html An RDF based proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/ 2009Mar/0010.html I personally do not find an RDF/XML syntax to meet my requirements (since RDF/XML doesn't play that well with the XML toolchain), though an RDF based syntax may be desirable for other reasons. Cheers, Bijan. Hi The SPARQLX syntax seems preferable, it is just a transliteration of a parse tree. It can do the nesting that occurs in expressions and the like without blank nodes, can keep arguments of functions in order without numbered predicates or RDF lists and so on. Plus XSLT applies. Since this is really straightforward once there is a final syntax, this can be a best practice and whoever needs it can make an XSLT sheet generating SPARQL. This does not per se have to be in the rec. It can be a non normative reference in it and the whole syntax can be expressed in some other document. Orri
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 11:32:31 UTC