- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:27:34 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> 1/ Property paths only mention IRIs or prefixed names. +1 My preference is to do (1) for now, leaving open the other possibilities as being a bit too early. Nothing should be designed out in terms of syntax. > 2/ Property paths with variables and IRIs or prefixed names. 0 Worried about how long it will take but it is useful. > 3/ With access to the length of the path matched -1 The multiple paths between the same node looks like it would raise many issues so too early. Can live with though. > 4/ With access to the path matched (path-valued variables is one > possibility) -1 Too complicated for a time permitting feature. > 5/ A mechanism that will allow a variety of path matching schemes, and > provide one such system. 0 > 6/ Do nothing in this round - too early to standardise. -1 I believe 1 is doable and worthwhile. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 11:28:53 UTC