- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:41:51 +0100
- To: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 31 Mar 2009, at 12:30, Orri Erling wrote: [snip] > 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. The main thing is to provide a Schema and a Namspace. The Schema should provide useful types so that one can construct schema aware queries. I'm happy with this being in a separate document. Is there any problem making it a rec track document? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 11:38:06 UTC