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

Re: Views on the outcomes of F2F

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:26:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4AF9DA80.2030508@talis.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 10/11/2009 20:18, Steve Harris wrote:
 > We're explicitly not chartered to do assignment - if that makes sense -
 > somewhat tortured English. We voted on a list of things to be in the
 > charter, and assignment was on the list that didn't make it.
> You could regard it as syntactic sugar for subselect + project
> expressions, but that doesn't appear to be what Holger is after, and
> it's a little sophisitic to argue that IMHO.

We have now have had feedback that the assumption that SELECT expression 
syntax is not sufficient.  We can respond to comments.

I believe Holger is asking for nothing more than syntactic sugar.
Jeremy's syntactic conversion from LET to SELECT expressions shows what 
they want and it's a syntactic rewrite even SPARQL syntax to SPARQL syntax.

We know LET->SELECT and SELECT->LET as syntatic transforms.. There is no 
new functionality (it does not change the algebra at all); it's all in 
the syntax to algebra translation step, which is what I consider 
syntactic suger.

I understand the comment as a request to make it easier to use by 
exposing the assignment part of AS without the project interactions - 
i.e. less verbose than SELECT *, (?x+?y AS ?z) without the pain of 
needing to get the "*" right; better appearance for usse when there are 
several assignments.

What do you think Holger is asking for?
In what way does it fall outside syntactic sugar?
    I would find a concrete example we can discuss helpful.
Do you have a different definition of syntactic sugar?

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 21:26:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC