- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:14:32 +0100
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 24 Aug 2010, at 01:27, Gregory Williams wrote: > 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. Just for clarification, I meant to move the discussion to the next TC, I agree that both these are important and hopefully still feasible in this round. Axel > 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 07:15:02 UTC