- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:27:24 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: >> * SPARQL 1.1 Common Functions Library >> Status? Are we doing it? Document? >> >> * should move to promote the JSON format as a REC >> and canonicalise its name? >> > > Good points as well, I would prefer to move them to next time, though. I don't know what would be involved in including both of these at this point, but I think both of these are important. There are many implementations that share a common set of functions that would benefit from standardization (most of these are probably from XPath F&O and have been listed on the wiki[1]; Leigh Dodds' survey[2] is also relevant here). The JSON format is similarly implemented by several implementations and standardization would greatly benefit potential new users of SPARQL for whom JSON is a preferable format to XML. Is the WG timeline the primary argument against including these in our current work? thanks, .greg [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#XQuery_1.0_and_XPath_2.0_Functions_and_Operators [2] http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AkNZYESXv3IndGwyRkRXZ2hES0RjM0c3MHhLa05vTmc&gid=6
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 00:27:54 UTC