- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:36:24 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Just a reminder: we will discuss & potentially resolve the LET/assignment issue in Tuesday's teleconference. Lee On 6/28/2010 1:01 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > I'd like to start another -- hopefully final -- discussion on the topic > of whether or not we want to include the assignment feature > (http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:Assignment) in SPARQL 1.1. > > The brief history here, as best I can remember/reconstruct it, is: > > 1. Proposed as feature during WG's original requirements gathering phase > > 2. Received significant support but missed the cut for what we chose to > work on (http://plugin.org.uk/misc/votes2.svg) > > 3. Raised on the -comments list by Holger Knublauch of TopQuadrant in > late October and a few dys later again by Jeremy Carroll of TopQuadrant > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2009Oct/0003.html > followed by > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2009Nov/0000.html) > > > 4. Assignment/LET was discussed, at least informally, at F2F2. Other > keywords were suggested (e.g. BIND) as alternatives to LET. No consensus > was reached on whether to include a dedicated syntax for assignment. > > 5. We discussed these comments internally in a thread starting near > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0392.html . > > 6. Andy provided some details on how the semantics of LET and SELECT > expressions relate in late November: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0540.html > > 7. We were asked about this feature by a TopQuadrant user (or employee, > I actually don't remember which) at the SPARQL 1.1 panel at SemTech. > > I believe in the intervening time, there are implementations other than > Open Anzo (Glitter) and ARQ which include LET. Is this true? > > I believe that Andy feels that this construct would be a syntactic > addition that directly invokes the current draft's Extend operation: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#defn_extend > > Based on this history, does anyone have feelings for or against > including this work? I'd like to discuss over email and then probably in > next week's teleconference. I'm hoping to resolve the issue (I've > created ISSUE-57 to track this) relatively soon and move on. > > thanks, > Lee >
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 01:37:09 UTC