W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

[TF-PP] Possible starting points

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:12:24 +0000
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693EA8D81F@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
This is a request for your views on starting points for the property paths time permitting feature.  

Please send +1/0/-1 for the options (which aren't meant to be mutually exclusive) or we might get telcon time.

I've tried to list the main possibilities in terms of styles and approach as starting points: all have variations and areas of uncertainty (e.g. ordering of results).
1/ Property paths only mention IRIs or prefixed names.

The most conservative choice. Still need to relate to entailment.

2/ Property paths with variables and IRIs or prefixed names.
(issues include restriction of what can be asked a la ?p* discussion)

3/ With access to the length of the path matched
Issues include how multiple paths between two nodes are handled (two lengths possible).

4/ With access to the path matched (path-valued variables is one possibility)
Issues as 3 + what is a path value "datatype".

For all of them: add an option to have

5/ A mechanism that will allow a variety of path matching schemes, and provide one such system.
Roughly, this would involve defining syntax so various different approaches can at least use common syntax but choose from 1-4 as to what the WG describes in this round of standardization and show the relationship to the syntax. E.g having a PATH keyword idea in [1].


6/ Do nothing in this round - too early to standardise.




[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0315.html

  Hewlett-Packard Limited
  Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
  Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 11:14:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:56 UTC